Read his post again.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adam Johnson guilty - 6 year sentence
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Just watched SSN. He was first story on. No coverage of him playing football, just a brief summing up of the offences he's pleaded guilty and not guilty to. They did mention that he plays for Sunderland following his transfer from Manchester City in 2012.
The vt that goes with it shows him in a City polo shirt and in a City suit, acting very cocky and bullish as he attends a function.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
and there was me thinking this arsehole left us because of him being shit and drinking too much
No, no r soleo, he left because he was brilliant but couldn't get a game 'cos of all them foreigners and City was ruining his career and that. The dynamic box to box midfielder Rodwell had the same trouble..
Great post.
Did I ever see the day when I would think a post from Didactic would be one of the best I'd seen on bluemoon ?
itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,331
She is still (LEGALLY) child and therefore easily influenced by an adult,i know as i was young once.In this case a rich well known footballer who knows she is there for the taking and has groomed her by his own admittance
So at 15 you're still a child and can be easily influenced but, a few months later, at 16 you're not? My point is that yes she was legally a child but only legally. Whether or not we can actually class her as a child who is too young to have sex is a different topic that cealry different countries differ about.
Read his post again.
I understand his point but there's a difference between a lack of law and differences of law. The fact that there are differences regarding the legal age to have sex is enough to highlight that it isn't objective and that she was actually a child.
zandvoort blue
Well-Known Member
Should he go to the Euros?
Should he go to the Euros?
Id still have him over Rooney
That isn't morally ambigious though, is it? That's what I'm saying. By the fact that no countries or socieities legalise beastiality or necrophelia is clear indication that there is something unarguably wrong with those acts. The fact that the age of having sex differs all over the world including in our continient means it is clearly up for debate that you it isn't.
If my understanding is correct in those other countries you can have sex with a person under the age of 16 if you are not older than 18? I do not think this law was made so horny men in their 20s and upwards can start proposing children. I think the law dealt with the reality of 15 year olds having 17 year old boyfriends which is very rational. What you are defending is an adult well past his 20s who has a partner as well as resources that would allow him access to the finest women in the world should knowingly persue a child and groom her into sexual acts. This is fine because in Germsny a 15 year old can legally have sex with her 17 year old boyfriend? There is something wrong with a mind that even tries to defend this.
The first reaction of any "normal" adult is disgust so the fact that you are able to find wiggle room to normalise this behaviour and cite foreign laws makes think there is some personal interest in this for you. When I think of who I want in my bed I'm not thinking of someone with 1D posters on their wall and was born 3 years before Facebook was formed. He is a pedophile because he is attracted to minors.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Of course you can still be easily led at 16 but the fact is every country sets there own age and if you go under that then you are on the sex offenders registar and maybe in prison as well.He knew the rules and went for an under aged girl,he could have any women he wantd but he went for a child so he is a paedoSo at 15 you're still a child and can be easily influenced but, a few months later, at 16 you're not? My point is that yes she was legally a child but only legally. Whether or not we can actually class her as a child who is too young to have sex is a different topic that cealry different countries differ about.
I understand his point but there's a difference between a lack of law and differences of law. The fact that there are differences regarding the legal age to have sex is enough to highlight that it isn't objective and that she was actually a child.