Kaitlyn Hunt and the Romeo and Juliet problem

posted at 11:31 am on May 25, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

In case you somehow missed it, Kaitlyn Hunt is a Florida high school student who finds herself in a sizable amount of hot water this month, as well as being at the center of a controversial national story. The senior class cheerleader was charged with felony level sex crimes after police investigated a report that she was involved in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old freshman. (Hunt is 18 years old.) The story becomes even more convoluted – and irresistible bait for the media – because the freshman is also female. The younger girl’s parents reportedly objected to what was going on between Hunt and their daughter, asked for the contact to end, and then called the police when Kaitlyn allegedly continued the relationship.

If convicted for “lewd and lascivious assault” and the other charges, Hunt could face more than a decade in jail and a lifetime on the sex offender registry. This has, predictably, resulted in a national furor on both sides of the case, with detractors claiming that the younger girl’s parents are homophobes who objected to their daughter having a girlfriend, (a charge they have since denied) and supporters declaring that the age gap defines Hunt as a sex offender and the law is protecting the younger girl. In an apparent attempt to calm the waters, prosecutors offered a plea deal where Hunt would plead guilty to somewhat lesser felony charges, do two years of house arrest followed by supervised parole, and not have the same level of permanent sex offender status. Hunt has declined the offer, and some of her supporters seem to feel that she may get off the hook based on Florida’s Romeo and Juliet laws.

This case brings to light some very old and extremely complicated issues. There is little disagreement on the fact that we need laws in place to protect children from becoming the prey of predatory pedophiles and monsters. But when we structure these laws, the door swings open to situations where minors who may be involved in inadvisable, but still consensual, high school relationships get swept up in laws intended for predatory adults. (Which side of this fence Kaitlyn falls on is probably the biggest debate here.) Thus the actions by a number of states which provide some form of relief for underage, sexually active teens under the so called Romeo and Juliet laws mentioned above. But Florida’s law in particular may not offer the escape hatch which some of Hunt’s supporters think it will. The state provides a good summary of the law which will probably come as a surprise to some observers.

Section 943.04354, F.S., provides a process allowing a motion or petition for removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender or sexual predator for qualifying “Romeo and Juliet” offenders who meet specific criteria outlined in the statute. Most notably , the victim must be at least 14 years-old, the offender no more than 4 years older than the victim at the time of the offense, and the victim must have consented to the sexual conduct. Qualifying offenses for consideration of registration relief by the court fall under the following statutes:
s. 794.011, F.S. (sexual battery); s.800.04. F.S. (lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age); s. 827.071, F.S. (sexual performance by a child); or s. 847.0135(5), F.S. (certain computer transmissions prohibited).

Section 943.04354, F.S., only addresses an offender’s registry requirement and does not make any of the above qualifying offenses legal. The sexual conduct associated with these offenses is still a crime when the victim is 15 years of age or younger, even if both of the participants are minors and the act was consensual.

If you read that section carefully, you’ll note that the law provides no relief in the form of an instant “not guilty” finding. The laws still stand as described. This only involves whether or not the perpetrator will wind up on the sex offender registry. And even then, it only allows them to petition to be taken off the list. It’s not automatic.

All of these laws in the states where they have been passed seem to lead to a lot of confusion and protestations, but it seems like there’s a great need for them. As adults, we gain a different perspective on teenage sex (or love) – particularly when it comes to our own daughters. But I certainly remember a very different point of view when I was in that age group myself. There was no amount of sage advice from adults which was going to dim my emerging interest in girls. This resulted in at least two situations where problems arose, one when I attempted to date a Senior girl when I was a freshman and another when I did date a sophomore when I was a senior. The former resulted in my being shoved into a wall by the girl’s actual boyfriend (also a senior) and the later saw my father and the girl’s father nearly come to blows in our driveway. But I can assure you, in neither case was I only interested in meeting the girls for milk and cookies in their parents’ yard.

But is there really no difference between an adult cruising the playground in a windowless van looking for victims and two classmates who agree to date? And how do we balance that with the fact that 14 year olds really can’t give meaningful consent under the law for things which they are not mentally or emotionally developed enough to deal with? Florida’s laws actually seem to blunder in the opposite direction when they provide relief for slightly older children.

s. 794.05, F.S., provides an age-gap provision that allows a 16 or 17 year-old to legally consent to sexual conduct with a person 16-23 years of age. The fact that an offender may not have known the age of the victim or the victim portrayed themselves to be older, cannot be used as a defense to prosecution under s. 800.04, F.S., or ch. 794, F.S. However, as provided in s. 921.0026, F.S., these facts can be offered at sentencing as mitigation for the court’s consideration.

So we wind up with a situation where a senior who has turned 18 and has a boyfriend or girlfriend who is a freshman (and we can really leave gender and homosexuality out of it for this part of the discussion) can wind up in jail for a decade and on the sex offender registry for life, but a 23 year old can go cruising the parking lots and get a 16 year old “girlfriend” to go back to their hotel if they “consent.” It’s a pretty crazy system, and there doesn’t seem to be any easy fix to it.

UPDATE: (Jazz) Doug Mataconis weighs in with the lawyer’s perspective and can’t make much more sense of it than I can.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13

If it was really “true love” then the 18 year old when told to back off, would have backed off and told the 14 year old that they needed to just pine for each other for the next 2 years til the 14 year old was 16. Then a 20 year old would be with a 16 year old…wait that’s still kind of wrong…um…ok…

If it was really “true love” then the 18 year old when told to back off, would have backed off and told the 14 year old that they needed to just pine for each other for the next 4 years til the 14 year old was 18. Then a 22 year old would be with an 18 year old. See, not so bad, so they could have waited. Right? If it was love right?

Bottom line, if a 18 year old boy stuck his finger in my 14 year old daughter’s private parts, like the arrest warrant states, he better hope the cops get to him before I do. At worst I’d get probation after paying some fines when I’m arrested for beating the living snot out of him. I can see why the 14 year old parent’s are pisssed.

Dino V on May 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

But even he admits below your post that the things he said on Saturday were the “worst”.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Nope.

Over 1000 comments and you dug through all of mine to find the few “worst” you could take out of context and that is the best you could do? laughable.

Worst is in quotes for a reason. Maybe you should take some english classes.

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 5:58 PM

*shiver*

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

As I said, hopeless. But “creepy” would indeed be also be apt. Brings to mind the first verse of Jethro Tull’s “Aqualung”.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Bottom line, if a 18 year old boy stuck his finger in my 14 year old daughter’s private parts, like the arrest warrant states, he better hope the cops get to him before I do. At worst I’d get probation after paying some fines when I’m arrested for beating the living snot out of him. I can see why the 14 year old parent’s are pisssed.
Dino V on May 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

The predator has been recorded on the phone confessing to putting more than her digits into the girl. She has also admitted this abuse to the police.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM

As I said, hopeless. But “creepy” would indeed be also be apt. Brings to mind the first verse of Jethro Tull’s “Aqualung”.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yep! Not many songs that spotlight “creepy” men checking out pretty young things. I remember my son as a kid showing the album cover to his friends and saying, “This Jethro guy is really good!” Heh. I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was a band. Lynard Skynard either.

What were we talking–? Oh yeah. I don’t dislike kaltes. But as some others have opined, I think he has geraniums in the cranium whenever we come to this subject.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 6:30 PM

As I said, hopeless. But “creepy” would indeed be also be apt. Brings to mind the first verse of Jethro Tull’s “Aqualung”.
whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yep! Not many songs that spotlight “creepy” men checking out pretty young things. I remember my son as a kid showing the album cover to his friends and saying, “This Jethro guy is really good!” Heh. I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was a band. Lynard Skynard either.

Heh. They must not have been huge fans to not know that! Tho a lotta people did equate the flautist-lead singer with the name.

What were we talking–? Oh yeah. I don’t dislike kaltes. But as some others have opined, I think he has geraniums in the cranium whenever we come to this subject.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 6:30 PM

There’s just this really weird anger coming across when he goes on about girls being “sluts”. (Blasted little temptresses, he knows they want it!)

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Bottom line, if a 18 year old boy stuck his finger in my 14 year old daughter’s private parts, like the arrest warrant states, he better hope the cops get to him before I do. At worst I’d get probation after paying some fines when I’m arrested for beating the living snot out of him. I can see why the 14 year old parent’s are pisssed.

Dino V on May 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Bottom line.

davidk on May 28, 2013 at 7:07 PM

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I made some more comments in the greeroom “theology thread.”

Just FYI.

davidk on May 28, 2013 at 7:08 PM

There’s just this really weird anger coming across when he goes on about girls being “sluts”. (Blasted little temptresses, he knows they want it!)

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Not at all, I just agree with:

To me it doesn’t matter what the ages are…young girls and boys shouldn’t be having sex anyway in my view, but to insinuate that those under 18 are pure and chaste and wouldn’t be interested in sex if it weren’t for the “predatory adults” is pure Victorian/Edwardian era hogwash.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I suspect that the more aggressive one in this particular case was the 14 year old, not Kaitlyn. That is just my opinion based on circumstantial evidence. The 14 year old ran away to Kaitlyn’s house for a reason. Kaitlyn and the 14 year old are BOTH responsible here, but for some reason everyone is giving the 14 year old a pass as if she were some babe in the woods with no thoughts of her own.

I think comments like yours, whatcat, show a morbid interest in deviancy on your part, a desire to assume that what I can only call sick fantasies which you claim to be offended by yet can’t stop thinking about, are being projected onto me. You’re not the only one doing it on this topic, a lot of the trolls are. You should ask yourself why you and the others only see the most perverse possible interpretation of words, or inject such a perverse interpretation when it isn’t there. That says a lot more about you than it says about me.

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Heh. They must not have been huge fans to not know that! Tho a lotta people did equate the flautist-lead singer with the name.

Teehee! They were all 10 year old black kids…or as you-know-who might say, almost ripe! j/k

There’s just this really weird anger coming across when he goes on about girls being “sluts”. (Blasted little temptresses, he knows they want it!)

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

No doubt about that! I just see him as more “unwell” than “evil”. It’s a good sign that he seems to be feeling the heat of backlash against his attention-grabbing tirades, and too that he accused me of taking his most appalling statements out of context. It shows a light of conscience amidst his darkest pronouncements.

We’ll all meet again next age-of-consent type thread, I’m sure!!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM

You should ask yourself why you and the others only see the most perverse possible interpretation of words, or inject such a perverse interpretation when it isn’t there. That says a lot more about you than it says about me.
kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Gee, you’re not only an expert on what underage girls really want but also a crack psychoanalyst. You know so much about everything!
So I can only agree with you that it’s not the adult who refers to victimized kids as “sluts” who might have a wee bit of a issue, it’s those who think it’s kinda creepy that he does so that have the problem. You’re a deep thinker, you are.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Teehee! They were all 10 year old black kids…or as you-know-who might say, almost ripe! j/k

Doesn’t every black kid have his Jethro Till phase and line dance to “Sweet Home Alabama” as part of their African-American experience? heheheheh

No doubt about that! I just see him as more “unwell” than “evil”.

Yeah, that works.

We’ll all meet again next age-of-consent type thread, I’m sure!!
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 7:40 PM

I hope this is the last one we have! But this might drag out if the perp really plays up the “hero lesbian fighting for civil rights” angle. I hope she reconsiders copping a lesser plea.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM

My quote is accurate. What’s your point?

njrob on May 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I didn’t realize you were trying to claim his remarks were civilized compared to other filth he’s typed previously. In that context, I’ll agree. I’d rather he go after us personally than defend the indefensible: the abuse of young children.

njrob on May 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Doesn’t every black kid have his Jethro Till phase and line dance to “Sweet Home Alabama” as part of their African-American experience? heheheheh

Sadly, no. And as teens, we didn’t even get “Frampton Comes Alive” delivered to every doorstep like kids in the suburbs did (that’s how it worked, didn’t it?)

:P

Yeah, that works.

Sorry. Just the non-religious version of “Christian charity”, I guess. Speaking of which, davidk invited you back to the “theology thread”. I went and peeked, and darn if you didn’t actually pose the ‘pygmy question‘, you troublemaker, you! No answer yet, but now you’ve got me interested…

I hope this is the last one we have! But this might drag out if the perp really plays up the “hero lesbian fighting for civil rights” angle. I hope she reconsiders copping a lesser plea.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Oh, please no! Make it stop!!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I didn’t realize you were trying to claim his remarks were civilized compared to other filth he’s typed previously. In that context, I’ll agree. I’d rather he go after us personally than defend the indefensible: the abuse of young children.

njrob on May 28, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Yes, indeed! Still quite unsettling.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 8:23 PM

. Speaking of which, davidk invited you back to the “theology thread”. I went and peeked, and darn if you didn’t actually pose the ‘pygmy question‘, you troublemaker, you! No answer yet, but now you’ve got me interested…
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Yeah, I don’t mean it as a gotcha question, I’m just interested in his particular take. It’s a toughee rock-hard place question for most Christians, but there are answers.

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I can’t believe the commenter kaltes had the nerve to call other people here trolls and “degenerates”. You’ve got to be kidding you ervert. What you’re posting here should get you banned.

smoothsailing on May 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Thirteen pages and very few comments from the gays on Hot Air condemning what this woman did. I guess they’re good with it.

smoothsailing on May 29, 2013 at 6:55 AM

…but for some reason everyone is giving the 14 year old a pass as if she were some babe in the woods …

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 7:32 PM

.

kaltes:

Ohhhhhh, so close to comprehension, but still not making it all the way.

The whole reason we treat juveniles different than adults is because they’re “babes in the woods,” and thus get “a pass” on lots of things.

18 is an adult, not a child and we do 18 yeard olds no service when we treat them as juveniles.

14 is a child and we do 14 yeard olds great harm when we treat them as adults.

Human decency, it’s what’s for breakfast.
.

Everyone else:

Sorry. I was the only one who hadn’t taken a shot at this guy and was feeling left out.

Cricket624 on May 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM

14 is a child and we do 14 yeard olds great harm when we treat them as adults.

Cricket624 on May 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM

What about all the laws that treat 14 year olds as adults if they commit a crime?

It has been found recently that the United States transfers roughly 13,000 juveniles to adult courts every year, with approximately 36% of those transfers involving youth who committed violent offenses.

Twenty-three states have no minimum age in a least one judicial waiver or statutory exclusion provision allowing for the transfer of juveniles to adult court. In states where a minimum age is specified for all transfer provisions, age 14 is the most common minimum age.

Sorry. I was the only one who hadn’t taken a shot at this guy and was feeling left out.

Cricket624 on May 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM

And you got owned for your trouble. With facts.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

blink on May 28, 2013 at 10:41 PM

You protest too much. You just want to attack every single thing he says. Anyone could do the same exact thing to you.

On what basis are you claiming that it’s immoral for minors to engage in sexual activity?

Ask all the social con trolls on here, since they all think the same thing. Are you saying you DONT think minors having sex is immoral? If not, you’re going to open yourself up to getting called a pedo by the resident trolls.

How severely should they be hung out to dry?

What does it matter? He thinks the punishment is excessive, either agree or disagree and state why, or move on. You are just trying to dig for something to argue with. He has no obligation to answer your demands. lol

Yes, that’s exactly what societies do, but feel free to describe your anarchist views if you don’t like this practice.

Actually no, societies do not necessarily use the law to impose a particular morality. This happens in some muslim countries, but as a general rule in secular states, people are not jailed because they are doing things that might be considered immoral, as long as there is no victimization.

I accept the reality that my noncompliance will be more trouble than it’s worth. I disagree with the flawed moral standard that liberals use to require excessive regulations and taxes.

Let me turn your game around on you as an example, I could ask you 10 questions about that statement you just made, but so what? All you’re doing is spitting out questions in a pretty obvious attempt to keep him on the defensive and keep attacking him. It is a trick that people learn as a child. There is nothing sophisticated about it.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

And you got owned for your trouble. With facts.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Once again, you’ve completely blown the comprehension part of the exam. Had you thought for a moment about what I’ve been saying, you would realize that I oppose the practice of transferring juveniles to the criminal courts.

But, hey, since you were kind enough to hand me a soap box, let the sermon commence. Even though somewhat less than 2% of juvenile cases are waived to criminal court each year, this is a serious matter warranting opposition.

Why? I’ll tell you why:

These laws were passed in response of increasing juvenile violence and juvenile recidivism in nonviolent crime. But, like you, the legislators did not comprehend the problem and did not try. And, as legislators are wont to do, they developed a response that makes things worse. Juveniles that are waived into the adult system are more likely to be beaten, raped and kicked around than adults. They have higher recidivism rates than minors that remain in the juvenile system. In short, not only are their lives ruined, but we all suffer from the lost opportunity in the creation of a career criminal who might otherwise have been turned towards a productive life.

Therefore, allow me to repeat:

14 is a child and we do 14 year olds great harm when we treat them as adults.

This is a criticism of our societal practice of treating kids like adults. I also criticized the other perspective of treating adults like kids. It confuses everyone, provokes the creation of absurd legal fixes, like the “Romeo and Juliet” laws, and generates bucketloads of injustice.

QED

Cricket624 on May 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM

On what basis are you claiming that it’s immoral for minors to engage in sexual activity?

The part where you refuse to describe the basis of your labeling a certain activity immoral.

The same basis that you use. The “tape recorder” running in the backs of our minds that comes from our families, schools, churches, and society in general.

How severely should they be hung out to dry?

I’d say probation, restraining order and mandatory counseling for Hunt. The mitigating factor is that the fourteen year old consented to this. If there is evidence that Hunt forced herself upon the fourteen year old physically and/or abducted her, then she needs to go to prison. I’ve already stated that.

Are you opposed to all laws?

No, I’m not opposed to all laws. I’m saying that there are too many and that often they are born out of some kind of social conservatism or social liberalism. I believe that what our current legal system does is rob us of the ability to truly take care of ourselves, our families and our property.

These parents should not have to rely on the “system” to protect their daughter (from Hunt and in a way from herself).

If not, what moral standard should the laws be based on?

The Constitution and the Ten Commandments.

Yes, that’s exactly what societies do, but feel free to describe your anarchist views if you don’t like this practice.

So you feel government should dictate our moral standards and that government is the ultimate insurer of our personal Liberty?

For example, the Moral Majority types made it so that drugs from marijuana on up is illegal. I agree that drug use is immoral. However, this has done nothing but clog up our legal system, filled our jails and prisons, made it easier for LE to infringe upon my personal Liberty, and has driven the cost of drugs upwards. So I’m at risk of being robbed, killed or injured because some moron needs to get money for his expensive fix.

We have to support an overly large legal system because of this, we have more violent offenders than we otherwise would have, and besides, many of them get probation or are simply released due to overcrowding in jails.

Why are you having so much answering my question?

Because a full explanation would take way too much typing and probably wouldn’t satisfy you anyway.

Not at all. That’s the point of my question. Are you really too stupid to understand that?

You may have noticed that it’s quite easy to respond to a post without ad hominem attacks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 29, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Cricket624 on May 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM

You said you wanted to “take a shot” at me” since you were “feeling left out”, so you simply made the argument that minors aren’t responsible for their own actions, then added some attempts at being obnoxious to it. After all the names I’ve been called in this topic, I’d have to say your attempts at obnoxiousness barely register.

In response I nailed you with the fact that I’m not the one treating teens as adults, THE GOVERNMENT IS. It is, of course, extremely hypocritical for someone to claim teens are adults in some situations but not others. They either are or they aren’t.

You get around the hypocrisy by being logically consistent in denouncing trying teens as adults. So you aren’t a hypocrite. However, taking that position would most likely get you called a dirty liberal by the other trolls and called a bunch of names.

Juveniles that are waived into the adult system are more likely to be beaten, raped and kicked around than adults.

To the resident trolls, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. People love to talk, practically drooling, about how criminals are going to get raped in prison. To the resident trolls, juveniles sent to be tried as adults are “certified bad people” and therefore deserve what they get.

Your posts would be a lot better if you simply included sufficient maturity to refrain from the attempts at injecting obnoxiousness in order to curry favor with the trolls. That’s what kids at the schoolyard do.

At this point I don’t see anything for us to argue about. Your position is consistent and even if I don’t agree with it, I can respect it.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You may have noticed that it’s quite easy to respond to a post without ad hominem attacks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 29, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I think he just picked it up from the resident trolls, like an infectious disease, so now he does it too. I saw him in another topic getting gang-banged by them. You’d think that for someone who has been on the receiving end of it, they’d know better, but you know what they say “if you can’t beat em, join em” (for the weak ones, anyway).

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM

gang-banged
kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM

This guy’s still ranting in NSFW-porn mode? Kinda funny – but, still, “Oy”.

whatcat on May 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM

whatcat on May 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM

A delusional degenerate.

kingsjester on May 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM

but to insinuate that those under 18 are pure and chaste and wouldn’t be interested in sex if it weren’t for the “predatory adults” is pure Victorian/Edwardian era hogwash.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Who insinuated that?

blink on May 28, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Our society in general insinuates that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 28, 2013 at 3:28 PM

But nobody at Hot Air. Got it.

blink on May 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Actually, ALL the trolls say it. Anyone who has sex with someone 14-17 is automatically a predator to them, and they have said this explicitly and repeatedly. They have called Kaitlyn a predator throughout this topic. So yes, quite a lot of people in the Hot Air comments are claiming that “those under 18 are pure and chaste and wouldn’t be interested in sex if it weren’t for the “predatory adults”

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I NEVER stated this yet you called me a troll – so you’re dead wrong.

blink on May 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM

If you didn’t say it, then I’m not calling you a troll, am I? Try using some logic and common sense for a change instead of just going off half-cocked at every little thing.

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Yes, you were. You were directly responding to MarkCasper’s response to me. YOU labeled the person that he was responding to (me) a troll.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Seriously, go back to school and learn the english language.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Again, why are you claiming that Hunt picked the 14 year old up off the streets? How do you know that Hunt didn’t pick her up from her house or corner or neighborhood?

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Her house? Because her parents would have said “Kaitlyn picked my daughter up and drove off with her without our permission” not “our daughter ran away and we don’t know where she is”.

I don’t know what kind of semantic garbage you’re peddling, but unless she was at her own house, or a guest at another house, she was effectively homeless and on the “streets” as the phrase is used in common usage regardless of whether she was on the sidewalk, in a park, or at mcdonalds.

You argue over the dumbest things.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

How could he do that to me? Dr. ZhivBlago claimed that it was immoral for minors to have sex. I want to know the basis for his determination of immorality?

Is Dr. ZhivBlago the morals police? Who is he to tell other people that their sex is immoral?

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

How big of a coward are you to attack Dr. ZhivBlago for making a moral judgment, when all the trolls in this topic, and I’m calling out: kingjester, whatcat, Ladysmith CulchaVulcha, njrob, BKennedy, notdallasthirty, Cindy Munford, etc. ALL clearly believe the same thing, and yet you single out Dr. ZhivBlago and say nothing to any of the others.

The only difference between Dr. ZhivBlago and the others is that he isn’t as eager to impose his morality on teens and the people they have sex with through the barrel of a gun.

I haven’t made a determination on that.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Dodging such an obvious question is also cowardly. You interrogate him, then when he asks you your position, you claim not to have one. Suuuuure.

Well, he indicated that they should be hung out to dry. I’m just wandering the extent to which he thinks they should be hung out to dry.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Semantic nonsense. You damn well know that he thinks the punishment is too severe, and he even told you in detail what punishment he thought would be appropriate. You’re playing semantic games.

Nope. He (and others on here) have been inconsistent and hypocritical. I’m just trying to see how hypocritical he really is. So far, it’s pretty bad.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Not at all, I think he is being perfectly logically consistent. Maybe you should look up what hypocrisy means, because you’re a hypocrite. You expect answers to questions from him that you refuse to answer yourself. THAT is hypocrisy.

Wow, you really are an idiot.

That’s EXACTLY what societies that have laws are doing. They are imposing a particular morality. If a society has a law against murder, it’s because they want to try to prevent/punish a behavior that they have deemed to be immoral.

How on earth could you make such a stupid claim?

blink on May 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

No, idiot, murder is against natural law. Every person innately knows it is wrong. If you look at all the different versions of morality out there in civilized societies, they all say murder is wrong. The same is true of every other “malum in se” crime. It has nothing to do with a particular morality defined by a belief system.

Yet again you stupidly retreat into semantic nonsense. Get a clue. The Taliban forcing women to cover up, or social cons and feminists criminalizing teenage sex, isn’t the same as murder, rape, theft, and so on.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Not necessarily, but I know realize that you’re just speculating.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:04 PM

It is more than speculation, it is an opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Speculation would mean I had no basis.

YOU are the one that made a big deal about Hunt getting Kaitlyn off the streets.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:04 PM

She had already run away from home at that point, according to the police report. Therefore if Kaitlyn said “no, fend for yourself” then who knows what the girl would have done instead. Kids who run away from home generally don’t turn around and go back immediately.

So, you’re claiming that Kaitlyn was “effectively homeless” even if she stepped from her parents lawn directly into Hunt’s car. Gee, you’re brilliant.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Except that you have no basis whatsoever to say that that happened. At least I have circumstantial evidence on my side. You have nothing.

Besides, since when does a lawn connect directly to a street? Did she leap 10 feet from the lawn over the sidewalk and rain gutter directly into the car dukes of hazard style? You know she was physically standing on the street when she got into the car, you just reaaaaaaallly don’t want to say that.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

How are you NOT calling me a troll here.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Because you’re not the only person in these comments, obviously. I didn’t call you a troll back then, but I’m happy to call you one now, if it will get you to move on with your life.

I do think your unnecessary personal attacks, constant nitpicking on non-issues, and general probing for things to argue about shows that you don’t care about the issues, you just have a fetish for arguing with people on the internet.

…and that makes you a troll.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM

If this many people were disagreeing with me on a subject, I would seriously rethink my position.

Yes, a million people can be wrong and only one right, but rarely.

davidk on May 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You just prefer they get raped as minors. They cannot LEGALLY CONSENT.

njrob on May 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM

If this many people were disagreeing with me on a subject, I would seriously rethink my position.

Yes, a million people can be wrong and only one right, but rarely.

davidk on May 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Leftists accuse others of what they practice because they know they’re already engaging in the action and could not imagine anyone else not doing it too. It’s why they’re such nasty people on a whole.

njrob on May 29, 2013 at 7:16 PM

The parents should also go to jail for allowing their daughter to knowingly violate the child in the case. They kept her in the house without calling the parents or calling the police. They let a 14 year old girl that they knew was in a relationship with their daughter to be alone, unsupervised in the daughter’s room where she sexually abused the 14 year old. They need to pay a penalty as well.

njrob on May 29, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Because you’re not the only person in these comments

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Fail.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Nope. You are just one of many commenters. The site doesn’t revolve around you. Any statement made is fodder for all the trolls. It’s perfectly reasonable to ignore your question given the answer’s non-impact on the greater discussion. Considering your cowardly dodges when you get asked questions, you’re in no position to demand answers to anything.

He still supports using the full force of the law to impose his morality on all of society.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Nope. He supports a greatly reduced sentence which would allow Kaitlyn to move on with her life, which puts him to the LEFT of you and all the trolls.

My answer is obviously excessively sophisticated for idiots like you and him/her.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Yes, your pathetic, hypocritical, cowardly refusal to answer a question you yourself asked of him is simply too much for my brain to handle. uh huh.

Wow, your stupidity is mind blowing.

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Wow, your argument is so awesome. You know how I know? From the name-calling and the caps. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Sorry you didn’t have the benefit of an education.

Just because current societies happen to be using the law to attempt to prevent/punish a certain action doesn’t mean that everyone believes that such action is wrong.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Near-total majorities of every society and culture do. That is good enough. Criminalization of teenage sex is, by contrast, absent in almost all of the civilized world. The US is an outlier thanks to our collaboration of rabid feminists and ignorant social cons, who join forces to throw 18 year old girls in prison.

BUT THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY EXAMPLES OF CRIMINALIZATION IN ORDER TO IMPOSE MORAL STANDARDS.

blink on May 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Again, the brilliance of you caps-centric argument style cannot be overstated, but allow me to point out the obvious semantic disparity: when I say “moral standards” I am obvious drawing a distinction between universal “malum in se” crime and variable “malum prohibitum” crime. Unless you understand this, my comment APPEARS to be nonsense, and in fact, your ignorance of basic legal principles has resulted in you thinking my comment is nonsense. See, educated people strive to use CONTEXT and such to give our opponents arguments the reasonable interpretation, not to intentionally impose an absurd, inaccurate interpretation which makes the comment into nonsense.

Let me do your job for you, and apply some basic logic, which you seem to lack:

It is not imposing morality on me or anyone else to say murder is wrong, since we all believe it. It IS imposing morality on Kaitlyn to say she is a bad person who should rot in prison for up to 15 years, since she clearly does not believe her actions were immoral, and many people agree with her, including me.

At this point unfortunately I think I would have to dumb down my comments so much for you to understand them, blink, that it just isn’t worth it.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 7:27 PM

They cannot LEGALLY CONSENT.

njrob on May 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Except they can. Read the law.

800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.—

(b) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent, and does not include submission by coercion.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0800/Sections/0800.04.html

So yes, a 14 year old CAN consent under Florida law, but the consent doesnt matter, as I have said before, since the law also says:

(2) PROHIBITED DEFENSES.—Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the victim’s consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by this section.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

blink on May 30, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

blink on May 30, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Ha! Hilarious. You know that I’m making you look like a monkey.

blink on May 30, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Uhhh…. Riiiiiiiiiight.

WHAT? You have NO idea what penalty I think is appropriate for someone in Hunt’s position. You really are clueless.

Hardly, I already called you a coward. You singled out and targeted the pro-Kaitlyn posters while saying nothing to the anti-Kaitlyn posters over the course of 1000+ comments. If you aren’t with the “throw the book at her” trolls, then you are an extraordinary coward who is so afraid of them that you didn’t engage them once, while laying into anyone who dared to speak against them. You also won’t state YOUR positions because, again, you are such a coward that you don’t want to open yourself up to criticism.

It’s hilarious that you would send me a link to to explain natural law as if I needed it.

Clearly, you did, since you didn’t understand the concept. You didn’t disagree with it in your posts, you just weren’t aware of its existence. Natural law isn’t a religion, it is a basic legal concept. It exists whether you believe it in or not.

So, if a near total majority of 100 people believed in islam, then that means that ALL of the 100 people believe in islam?

It means, when speaking about the group collectively, you could say “that group is muslim”. Similarly, you can see that every society and culture agrees that murder is wrong, even if a tiny number of people might disagree. If you were a rational, reasonable, educated person, I wouldn’t even have to mention this, you’d already know it. But since you are an absurdity fetishist, I need to educate you about basic concepts or you’ll just rant like a lunatic that because 1 psycho is pro-murder, that means we are imposing our morality on him. Not that I care.

Wrong!

Not everyone believes that killing is wrong.

And there you go, right on cue. How stupid can you be to think you can change “murder” to “killing”? Killing is not a crime, murder is. Every culture and society agrees that murder is wrong, despite different religions and belief systems. Here I am, once again, explaining the basic concept of natural law to you, which you claim you understand, but clearly don’t.

Is it simply because modern culture has conditioned so many people to erroneously believe this? Obviously, you’ve been so conditioned that you pretending that everyone shares your moral standard. Hilarious.

Learn some history nut job, malum in se crimes have been crimes since the dawn of civilization. lol

No, it’s not. That’s merely an opinion. However, many of those people might support using the force of law to impose that moral on Kaitlyn, but simply expressing their opinion is not imposing a moral.

Yes, idiot, that is implied by “say” which is the same as “advocate” which is the same as “support using the force of law to impose that moral on Kaitlyn”. I know taking those tiny rhetorical steps is too much for your mind, but if you try really hard, maybe you can figure it out for yourself instead of claiming that Im in the wrong for not chewing your food for you and spitting it into your mouth as if you were a baby bird.

Seriously, do you think intentionally misinterpreting someone’s words makes an argument? All that means is that I have to idiot-proof my words to an absurd degree, but you’re too much of an idiot to make the effort worthwhile.

If a near total majority enforce a moral by enacting laws, then it’s not imposing such moral on others.

It sure isn’t for extraordinarily obvious reasons you can’t seem to understand.

If the accused, you, and many people disagree with a certain punishment for the breech of a moral, then it IS imposing such a moral on others.

Oh, poor you, you misspelled “breach”. After all those times you were extra careful to spell “you’re”, you must be very disappointed in yourself.

Wow, you’re stupid.

I’m done trying to explain the basic concepts of natural law, malum in se, and malum prohibitum law to you. This isn’t my opinion, it is basic knowledge you simply don’t seem to have.

Im confident that 3rd parties who read this will understand what I was saying, and see you as the idiot that you are for not getting it, and further see your hubris in calling me stupid for your ignorance.

In your own mind, you will be the “winner” of this exchange regardless of what I say, so good luck with that. Someday, though, you might learn enough to finally come to understand how incredibly stupid your posts are. I wish you the best of luck with that.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 2:13 AM

(b) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent, and does not include submission by coercion

Florida’s law has a circular definition, interesting

A substantial number of people, kaltes, believe that Hunt’s victim was effectively coerced into the relationship at the start and guilted into continuing it by Hunt’s badgering. Your insistence that 14 year olds can consent is muddling between a legal definition of consent and a practical one.

Even toddlers can “consent” under a practical definition if “consent” becomes synonymous with “do.” E.g. a toddler consents to playing in the sandbox, a toddler consents to ride the slide, etc. Bottom line: A 14 year old cannot offer legal consent to an action visited upon them.

This was not a long-developing love story. This was an 18 year old senior preying on a freshman who she had access to for a maximum of two months before plunging below her belt in a high school bathroom stall. Even if you want to believe Hunt was somehow seduced by a brilliant 14 year old, 18 year olds are expected to reject such seduction.

Finally, the law is an imposition of morality on people. The law says if you do prohibited action X then you will be punished. People are strongly divided on the drug war, yet drug laws still exist. People rarely follow the speed limit, yet they can still be punished when it is enforced.

In terms of illegality vs. immorality, the difference between “evil” and “wrong” is irrelevant. The law places constraints on human behavior because it is assumed harm will result from the law. A large number of laws are incredibly unjust, especially in the Age of Obama. I certainly feel the heavy weight of Obama’s retrograde morality when he requires me and my church to pay for Sandra Fluke to go horizontal in excess of her ability to privately pay for her own contraception.

I also find it hilarious that conservatives are being called trolls on a conservative leaning website. Trolling is not the same as authoring a message that offends somebody. Welcome to the internet.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

Mr. kaltes is arguing with such relative reason today, I had to go back to pages 2 & 3 of this thread to recall why he gave me the heebie-jeebies in the first place. To begin with, an adult “gives” a minor sex. Like water to a thirsty plant, doncha know:

If you want to make consensual non-predatory sex between teens and adults a crime, okay, but make it A MINOR CRIME because that is what it is. Giving a teenager sex is no worse than, for example, giving the teenager alcohol, yet giving alcohol is a slap on the wrist while giving sex results in a life-destroying draconian punishment regardless of the facts.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Let me just add an unpopular but true comment: This 14 year old is scum.

Look at the facts. The 14 year old went after Kaitlyn. The 14 year old wanted to get all lesbian with Kaitlyn. The 14 year old not only texted with Kaitlyn to meet up in the school bathrooms for some making out and fingering, but she also ran away from home, went to Kaitlyn, and then had oral sex with her that night.

Who is the aggressor here? Kaitlyn? Did Kaitlyn come to miss 14? NOPE. Miss 14 ran away to come to Kaitlyn. Obviously miss 14 and her parents have a dysfunctional relationship.

So why is miss 14 scum? BECAUSE AFTER SHE SEDUCED KAITLYN, SHE WILLINGLY AIDED THE POLICE IN RUINING KAITLYN’S LIFE. How? With a trick phone call.

…Miss 14 sits there and asks if Kaitlyn loved her, if she meant anything to Kaitlyn, and so on. What kind of a f*cked up human being can ask those kinds of questions when she knows the cops are listening?

If anything belongs in jail, Id say the 14 year old does. Maybe if she does some time in Juvie, she will learn to keep her legs closed.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM

No one said anything about manipulation, but if a teenage girl is attractive and goes after an adult, it is not malicious or immoral for the adult to say “yes”. It is not that adult’s job to parent your child for you, UNLESS that adult agreed to do so in the form of teaching, babysitting, coaching, etc.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM

She picked her up in her car and took her to her parents house. No, she didn’t have anything to do with. Just keeping her safe./

Cindy Munford on May 25, 2013 at 2:26 PM

The 14 year old would have been better off on the streets? Maybe then she could have given blowjobs for crack and you’d be much happier with the situation.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Get a clue — My fourteen year old granddaughter will NOT become a slut so sick-minded liberals with their ‘sexual revolution’ can somehow be justified.

Liam on May 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Good for you, but some 14 year olds ARE sluts, aren’t they?

Throwing a guy in prison and making him a sex offender for having sex with a slut without demanding ID first is ridiculous and foolish, isn’t it? Most guys have very low standards to begin with.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM

*shiver*

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM

I’m surprised that he’s still ranting about this – you’d think that at some point a person would realize he’s dug himself into a mighty big hole. Or, as in kaltes’ case, a slimepit.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I’m surprised that he’s still ranting about this – you’d think that at some point a person would realize he’s dug himself into a mighty big hole. Or, as in kaltes’ case, a slimepit.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yeppers. All yesterday I was out livin’ life and buying crud for a trip to Vegas, so shocka(!) today kaltes is still here, and holding Dr. ZhivBlago’s challenging arguments up as a shield, rather than stand behind his own words wherein is revealed his dark, howling id.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Yeppers. All yesterday I was out livin’ life and buying crud for a trip to Vegas, so shocka(!) today kaltes is still here, and holding Dr. ZhivBlago’s challenging arguments up as a shield, rather than stand behind his own words wherein is revealed his dark, howling id.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Even with the dreary weather we’ve been enduring in the parts, life has also had me busy. But not re: Vegas trip, heh! Good luck, hope you come back with more bucks than when you left!

It would seem he has a bit of a history here at HA – if I had known that, maybe I wouldn’t be surprised he’s not embarrassed:

Should bestiality be illegal?

Yeah, so who cares? As long as it is the person’s own animal (not someone elses) and no violence/force/injury is present, AND it is behind closed doors and not distributed (obscenity) I agree that it isn’t the government’s business.

A LOT of things are both legal and gross. Why does the government have a right to get involved in the one area (sex) which is the most private?

kaltes on December 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM

(same thread)

Incest creates psychological damage

No moreso than any other consentual relationship, and putting them in jail is far more psychological damage. It isn’t your business what consenting adults do in private.

Bestiality harms animals.

How does a dog licking peanut butter from a woman’s crotch harm the dog?
kaltes on December 21, 2012 at 8:08 PM

A manifesto of sorts on child-adult sex here.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

One sick puppy.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Good luck, hope you come back with more bucks than when you left!

Nah, dude. They didn’t build all those glittering palaces on the backs of winners, heh heh. Still, only thing I’ll feel guilty for blowing big cash on is the stupid Michael Jackson show, which ads on THIS VERY SITE convinced me to buy (isn’t he dead or somethin’?).

Now as for the kaltes links, thanks for reminding us of specifics. I only recalled a familiar, uneasy darkness from these couple years of reading his stuff. As mentioned upthread:

I don’t dislike kaltes. But as some others have opined, I think he has geraniums in the cranium whenever we come to this subject.

I just see him as more “unwell” than “evil”.

That still holds.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Thank you. I didn’t have the misfortune of reading those comments the first time. But it is consistent with his current illogical remarks. All about the pleasure of the individual without any responsibility for the consequences of such acts.

njrob on May 30, 2013 at 1:29 PM

A manifesto of sorts on child-adult sex here.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Dag nabbit! Now I had to scan his comments throughout that thread:

People like you are the reason that sex offenses are demagogued in this country. Politicians who want to single out pedos and use them as a boogeyman to scare voters like you, much like how the nazis used the jews, or southern racists used blacks.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Some pedos are far worse than others. Some maliciously victimize as many victims as they can, while others were molested themselves, are ridden with guilt and shame, and spend their lives resisting their impulses and hating themselves. Most never victimize anyone, some who DID victimize someone, might not have had they been in treatment.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 9:59 AM

The truth is that MOST molesters have gotten away with it, in large part because the victims know what will happen to the predator, and the victims do not wish to inflict such overwhelming revenge, so they keep their mouths shut. Victims are afraid that reporting it will destroy their families (and they are right).

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

If you say you have a thing for kids, but you only masturbate to fantasies of them, they’re going to diagnose you as a pedo anyway.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

The psychologists are arguing that because of the extremely hatred, fear, vilification, etc of pedophiles, they are too scared to come in to get help because they might get turned in to the police or have their reputations destroyed.

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

I rarely post comments, this topic just ended up becoming a monster.

kaltes on August 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM

No shiznit.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Florida’s law has a circular definition, interesting

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

That is not circular.

A substantial number of people, kaltes, believe that Hunt’s victim was effectively coerced into the relationship at the start and guilted into continuing it by Hunt’s badgering.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

There is no evidence of that whatsoever, if there was, she would face additional charges, and she wouldn’t have been offered a plea that left out registration.

Even toddlers can “consent” under a practical definition if “consent” becomes synonymous with “do.”

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

Except that is not the definition, so your statement is absurd. Nobody thinks toddlers can consent to sexual activity under the common, let alone the legal, definition.

Finally, the law is an imposition of morality on people.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

Nothing is being imposed if you agree with it. Everyone with a properly functioning brain agrees that malum in se crimes are wrong, regardless of their belief system.

People are strongly divided on the drug war, yet drug laws still exist. People rarely follow the speed limit, yet they can still be punished when it is enforced.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

Those are malum prohibitum crimes “wrong because we say so” and they ARE an imposition, however, speeding is not a crime, it is an infraction punishable by a fine. The drug war IS controversial and IS an imposition of morality, particularly when it comes to imprisoning users. The difference between drugs and teenage sex is that drugs are illegal everywhere in the world, whereas teenage sex is legal almost everywhere in the world.

A large number of laws are incredibly unjust, especially in the Age of Obama. I certainly feel the heavy weight of Obama’s retrograde morality when he requires me and my church to pay for Sandra Fluke to go horizontal in excess of her ability to privately pay for her own contraception.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

I agree, hence why I believe in small government and am opposed to many of those laws. I am consistent. I think it is inconsistent and hypocritical, though, for social cons to pick and choose. Either you want government to butt out, or you don’t. You can’t say “I wan’t government to leave people alone” but then say “except if a teenager has sex, then I want big government regulating it!”

I also find it hilarious that conservatives are being called trolls on a conservative leaning website. Trolling is not the same as authoring a message that offends somebody. Welcome to the internet.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 6:31 AM

Trolling is when a person is just posting to flame someone or attack them. It has nothing to do with ideology.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Kaltes, please get back on your meds.

Definition of an Internet Troll (wordiq.com)

Common types of troll messages or activities:
off topic messages — “Can anyone help me make a webpage?” “No, this is a music forum.”
inflammatory messages — “You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list.”
messages containing an obvious flaw or error — “I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski’s best movie.”
intentionally naive or politically contentious messages — “I think George W. Bush is the best/worst President ever.”
intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
posting a ridiculous claim and then insisting it’s true unless people refute it to their satisfaction.
making loud claims to be on the defensive, while the claims are a guise for their aggressive maneuvers.
including offensive media such as annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a message.
after successfully baiting users, feigning innocence and/or feigning ignorance of procedures

A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus of the group or forum

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:04 PM

*shiver*

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM

All you did was copy paste your prior comment from 2 days ago which was itself a copy/paste of excerpts you took from my past posts out of context in an attempt to paint me in a negative light. That is called spamming.

blink on May 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I already finished what I had to say to you in my prior post. I didn’t read your response and I’m not interested in it.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Oh goodness, you found me out: my views on the criminal justice system are consistent with being a small-government conservative. You might even say they are downright libertarian.

It is pathetic that you would research all my old comments at hotair, something which takes a huge amount of time and effort, just to try to smear me on this topic. You must have no life.

Of course, you have company:

[mass of my posts from 2011 omitted for brevity]

No shiznit.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I guess you don’t have a life either, if you think it is a good investment of your time to dig through years-old posts from some commenter on a message board.

Yeppers. All yesterday I was out livin’ life and buying crud for a trip to Vegas, so shocka(!)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

LOL. You must be insecure about the fact that you have no life if you are trying to argue that you do when no one has brought it up.

I post on here, it is a form of entertainment, but I don’t waste time digging through people’s comments from years ago. You people do.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:12 PM

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Thanks for proving my point.

Common types of troll messages or activities:
off topic messages
dredging up my posting history from 2 years ago is off topic
inflammatory messages
pretty much every response to me on this topic is based on personal attacks, aka “flaming” including the one Im replying to
messages containing an obvious flaw or error
pretty much all post content in response to my posts that isn’t already a personal attack
intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
pretty much every post from blink

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:17 PM

LOL. You must be insecure about the fact that you have no life if you are trying to argue that you do when no one has brought it up.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:12 PM

As stated before, I feel pity for whatever demons you’re fighting. Now, what number would you like me to play on the Roulette wheel next week for you?

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Ladysmith’s right. Please seek help.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Rather than play BlockQuote Fest, Imma just beat kaltes with kaltes own previous statements:

There is no evidence of that whatsoever, if there was, she [Hunt] would face additional charges, and she wouldn’t have been offered a plea that left out registration.

Let me just add an unpopular but true comment: This 14 year old is scum.

Look at the facts. The 14 year old went after Kaitlyn. The 14 year old wanted to get all lesbian with Kaitlyn. The 14 year old not only texted with Kaitlyn to meet up in the school bathrooms for some making out and fingering, but she also ran away from home, went to Kaitlyn, and then had oral sex with her that night.

Who is the aggressor here? Kaitlyn? Did Kaitlyn come to miss 14? NOPE. Miss 14 ran away to come to Kaitlyn. Obviously miss 14 and her parents have a dysfunctional relationship.

So why is miss 14 scum? BECAUSE AFTER SHE SEDUCED KAITLYN, SHE WILLINGLY AIDED THE POLICE IN RUINING KAITLYN’S LIFE. How? With a trick phone call.

…Miss 14 sits there and asks if Kaitlyn loved her, if she meant anything to Kaitlyn, and so on. What kind of a f*cked up human being can ask those kinds of questions when she knows the cops are listening?

If anything belongs in jail, Id say the 14 year old does. Maybe if she does some time in Juvie, she will learn to keep her legs closed.

kaltes on May 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I really don’t think you should be talking about what evidence does and doesn’t exist when you’ve called a 14 year old scum and “a slut” and fantasized that she hoodwinked Kaitlyn Hunt. In order to believe you, I’d have to believe:

1. The Smith’s daughter is a brilliant, manipulative mastermind who decided to target a legal adult to not only bring into her lesbian fantasies but to then destroy that person.

2. Kaitlyn Hunt is one of the most gullible, easily manipulated, and clueless people to walk the planet. So clueless she just happened to get tricked into a lesbian jailbait situation by someone four years her junior.

None of this makes any sense when the Hunt family was the one that hired the homosexual rent-a-mob and the Smith family just went to the local station to make the case after the fact that they weren’t hideous people. The Hunt family were the ones that turned this into a national crusade, the Smiths just want to know where to go to get their reputation back. So who am I going to believe? The testimony of people with the minor daughter victim who have been savaged by the rent-a-mob or the testimony of the people who lied at the outset if their national crusade about the relationship and hired a mob to assassinate the character of the parents of the victim to protect the aggressor?

By your understanding of it the Smith’s daughter got away with the perfect crime – no one would expect the minor to be the culprit in a tryst that started two months after she entered high school.

I have no reason to believe, kaltes, that you care about facts or evidence. You’re just a very sick individual as indicated by your posts both recent and distant, and you really should seek help for whatever it is that got your head so messed up.

You are creepy. Now go away.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Ladysmith’s right. Please seek help.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yup.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 5:34 PM

fantasized

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM

It’s not a fantasy. Good kids don’t run away to have sex. That is exactly what this 14 year old did. She didn’t run away because she was being abused, she ran away to have sex. Then after she got Kaitlyn to have sex with her, and she got in trouble for having run away, instead of taking responsibility for her own actions, she put all the blame on Kaitlyn.

BKennedy, you are pathetic. You might have some points you try to make, but all you really care about is acting like a little child trying to get the approval of your peers. You’re just sucking up to the other trolls by calling me names. Grow up.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Fyi, it is pretty obvious I am wiping the floor with you and the others considering that you constantly change the subject. You keep failing, so you keep trying to attack in different ways, try-hard nonsense like digging up old posts is all you’ve got left.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:05 PM

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:05 PM

You are quite perverted and quite delusional. Please, seek help.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You are quite perverted and quite delusional. Please, seek help.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Ladysmith’s right. Please seek help.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Yup.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 5:34 PM

You are creepy. Now go away.

BKennedy on May 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM

As stated before, I feel pity for whatever demons you’re fighting.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Kaltes, please get back on your meds.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I just see him as more “unwell” than “evil”.

That still holds.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM

One sick puppy.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

his own words wherein is revealed his dark, howling id.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

*shiver*

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 9:20 AM

A delusional degenerate.

kingsjester on May 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I can’t believe the commenter kaltes had the nerve to call other people here trolls and “degenerates”. You’ve got to be kidding you ervert. What you’re posting here should get you banned.

smoothsailing on May 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM

(Blasted little temptresses, he knows they want it!)

whatcat on May 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM

LOL

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:38 PM

LOL

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Sick people often laugh at their own perversion.

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Fyi, it is pretty obvious I am wiping the floor with you
kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 6:05 PM

“If you say you have a thing for kids, but you only masturbate to fantasies of them, they’re going to diagnose you as a pedo anyway.
kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM”

Uh huh, you sure are. Heed Lady’s advice, seriously.

whatcat on May 30, 2013 at 6:53 PM

A pedophile is someone who as acted on it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

False.

The ICD-10 defines pedophilia as “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.” The current proposed DSM-V language fits with the ICD-10 language. Psychologists are not lawyers. The DSM-IV doesn’t bind them. If you say you have a thing for kids, but you only masturbate to fantasies of them, they’re going to diagnose you as a pedo anyway. There are no loopholes in practice.

Part of the conference in question was drawing a distinction between pedophiles and criminal molesters, which is something the proposed DSM-V tries to do as well:

kaltes on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Sure you did

blink on May 30, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Nope, and I didnt read these 2 new ones either. Im tired of educating you. Are you going to keep posting and cry for attention now? boo hoo.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 8:33 PM

So, you claim that YOU post on here as “a form of entertainment…”

And you claim that I post on here as a “cry for attention…”

kaltes, you certainly are consistently hypocritical.

blink on May 30, 2013 at 8:57 PM

I don’t think he’s displaying hypocrisy, blink. It’s a crippling lack of insight. His way of peering into the telescope wrong way ’round so that we are seeing him in-focus and large as life while he insists that it is we who appear small, twisted and dim, instead of himself. It’s his habitual go-to Defense Mechanism:

Projection

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

Example:
I think comments like yours, whatcat, show a morbid interest in deviancy on your part, a desire to assume that what I can only call sick fantasies which you claim to be offended by yet can’t stop thinking about, are being projected[!] onto me. You’re not the only one doing it on this topic, a lot of the trolls are. You should ask yourself why you and the others only see the most perverse possible interpretation of words, or inject such a perverse interpretation when it isn’t there. That says a lot more about you than it says about me.

kaltes on May 28, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Example:
I do think your unnecessary personal attacks, constant nitpicking on non-issues, and general probing for things to argue about shows that you don’t care about the issues, you just have a fetish for arguing with people on the internet.

…and that makes you a troll.

kaltes on May 29, 2013 at 6:17PM

Example:
blink — cry for attention
kaltes — entertainment

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Example:
blink — cry for attention
kaltes — entertainment

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Posting a bunch of new messages directed at a person who has clearly stated that he is done “arguing” with you is a cry for attention. It’s like jumping up and down and screaming in the hopes you can provoke the person into a response.

I think blink went through the stages of grief when I stopped replying to him. You know, denial, anger, etc.

I didn’t take the bait, and it looks like this topic has run its course, at almost 1300 comments, just in time for it to fall off the main page.

kaltes on May 31, 2013 at 2:25 AM

You must be glad of the whole “falling off the page” thing.

See you next time!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM

You must be glad of the whole “falling off the page” thing.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM

Heh. But since, tragically, all too often child abuse, rape, incest and bestiality in the news, he’ll be able to keep in his longtime unwell groove thang. So there is that.

whatcat on May 31, 2013 at 4:40 AM

Heh. But since, tragically, all too often child abuse, rape, incest and bestiality in the news, he’ll be able to keep in his longtime unwell groove thang. So there is that.

whatcat on May 31, 2013 at 4:40 AM

Yeah un-hunh. And we will be here to “greet” him. You were wise on the older threads, whatcat, but many of us here have run and caught up.

And y’know what? While I was on and on about his subconscious bubbling up, I discovered that mine did as well:

Yeppers. All yesterday I was out livin’ life and buying crud for a trip to Vegas, so shocka(!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

LOL. You must be insecure about the fact that you have no life if you are trying to argue that you do when no one has brought it up.

kaltes on May 30, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Touche!? I thought I woke up yesterday, Friday May 30th, newly excited about my trip, but last Monday on this very thread, a full week b/4 vacation, my subconscious “projected” one foot stepping on the plane:

I don’t know KALTES, but as a betting woman, I’ll wager this person is a man. No woman would argue so strongly, repeatedly and for years, about adolescent girls’ sexual seductiveness around adult males, or argue that said men are helpless before these “Lollipop Lolita” temptresses.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 27, 2013 at 7:58 AM

Hoo. Bet? Wager? Heh. See one and all next weekend!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 31, 2013 at 5:46 AM

Whoops! Yesterday the 30th was Thursday.

“Ehhhhhhhhh, Salami.”
~Bugs Bunny

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 31, 2013 at 5:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13