If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPBF West Palm Beach)   Lesbian teen arrested for sex with underage girlfriend refuses to take plea deal. Says she's not licked yet   (wpbf.com) divider line 1323
    More: Followup, plea deal, WPBF 25 News, sex scandals, underage, girlfriend, refuses, lesbians, teens  
•       •       •

15111 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-25 02:45:43 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: A daughter has never been made to do anything by her parents.


And you do it again. You just cannot quit, can you, you just keep digging that hole.

My entire stance has been on the basis of Kate's actions. She is the adult, she committed the crime, and it's her family using character assassination techniques and identity politics to defend their daughter. If the truth would be a better defense, they'd have used it, so the strong implication is that Kate was and is a predator who knew she was violating the law, and has willfully chosen to refuse the sweetest plea deal ever handed down to an 18 year old child molester.
 
2013-05-25 02:47:04 PM
Very simply put, Montana age of consent is 16. PERIOD.
 
2013-05-25 02:56:45 PM

legion_of_doo: Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.

I'm expecting the Fark Pedobear brigade to set up camp & start singing "We shall overcome" while they display their NAMBLA cards over this shiat.

/Sure, critical thinking is great when it comes to law (we're not talking Justice, but Law)... but the law is there for a decent reason, and getting rid of age of consent is just stupid/creepy.  Not sure why people are arguing so harshly over this... the "lust for jailbait" angle makes about as much sense as any.


Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent." Or, alternatively, explain how advocating that an 18yo is still a kid somehow equates to more access to "jailbait."

And, you're absolutely correct - the law IS there for a decent reason; it's the indecent application of the law that is problematic, and the concern of Farkers like myself.

On the other hand, you're all friendly with Mock26, so you might be of the same caliber black-and-white jackass as him, so my expectations are quite low.
 
2013-05-25 03:03:16 PM
Ok, I stand corrected on Florida's law.  But my question stil stands for the states that do have so called Romeo & Juliet laws.
 
2013-05-25 03:03:31 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent."


She's 18 and legally an adult. She could have told her lawyer to accept the plea deal, and faced an easy penalty for a crime she's admitted committing. She's chosen not to. Her parent's have chosen to spread FUD in a massive disinformation campaign, rightly relying on the fact that most people don't think twice about any news story, they accept the first version to reach their ears. Kate Hunt has chosen to ruin her own life, and her parents are eagerly helping that along. They can take care of her when she gets out of prison.
 
2013-05-25 03:03:54 PM
We have a lot of people defending someone who had sex in a bathroom with someone who couldn't give consent.  Does that mean all is forgiven with Ben Roethlisberger?
 
2013-05-25 03:06:04 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.

Refusing to acknowledge that the law needs improvement is, in fact, lazy and obtuse. Addressing salient, important questions with "obey! law!!" is also lazy and obtuse. Failing to offer insight or suggestion on how to better address these problems is lazy and obtuse.

Writing one line responses is lazy and obtuse. You are lazy and obtuse. And an insipid bore.


Did I say that the law does not need improvement?  No.  I did not.  But, the laws are currently on the books and as such we should obey them.  That does not, however, preclude advocating that the law be changed.  So yeah, obey the law, because that is what being part of a civilized society means. 

As for a one line response, it is called being succinct.
 
2013-05-25 03:07:52 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: legion_of_doo: Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.

I'm expecting the Fark Pedobear brigade to set up camp & start singing "We shall overcome" while they display their NAMBLA cards over this shiat.

/Sure, critical thinking is great when it comes to law (we're not talking Justice, but Law)... but the law is there for a decent reason, and getting rid of age of consent is just stupid/creepy.  Not sure why people are arguing so harshly over this... the "lust for jailbait" angle makes about as much sense as any.


Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent." Or, alternatively, explain how advocating that an 18yo is still a kid somehow equates to more access to "jailbait."

And, you're absolutely correct - the law IS there for a decent reason; it's the indecent application of the law that is problematic, and the concern of Farkers like myself.
On the other hand, you're all friendly with Mock26, so you might be of the same caliber black-and-white jackass as him, so my expectations are quite low.

 
Wow.  You sure do get your panties wadded up quite easily.
 
2013-05-25 03:14:23 PM

Internet Meme Rogers: Boojum2k: bigwf2007: Kate's Uncle posted on the Free Kate Facebook page:
Thank you all for supporting my niece Kate Hunt. As much as we want your support, we also want to keep things accurate and free of exaggeration, even when it engenders sympathy. There has been quite a bit of accidental misinformation spreading around on this page and other sites. This post will hopefully clarify a few things.

First, to be clear, we are not arguing that Kate is being prosecuted by the State of Florida because of her sexual orientation.

"It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.

Yeah, it's pretty solidly established now that her family are liars.

For fark's sake, her family are horrified that she is being charged with a felony for sexual contact with her high school sweetheart. Yeah, they're casting about and feeling persecuted. Because they're being persecuted.

I love how everybody is so completely certain that the younger woman's family was not at all concerned with the fact that she was with another female. Oh no, there's no evidence of homophobia here, without having any clue what they may have stated to the 18 year old in question or her family. Can the possibility be entertained that the 18 year old's family may have said such things because the 14 year old's family's disapproval of the homosexual nature of the relationship was stated at some point?


there is proof of one of these things and none of the other
 
2013-05-25 03:16:23 PM

bigwf2007: "It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.


You fail as a parent when you do not educate your child on sexual responsibility.  When she started hanging out with the 14 year old the first thing you do is sit down and tell her....no hanky panky.  It doesn't matter whether she wants it and you want it.  NOTHING goes on.
 
2013-05-25 03:19:25 PM

BizarreMan: bigwf2007: "It's horrible. For my daughter's sexual preferences, she's getting two felony charges. It could possibly ruin her future," Steve Hunt told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday.

You fail as a parent when you do not educate your child on sexual responsibility.  When she started hanging out with the 14 year old the first thing you do is sit down and tell her....no hanky panky.  It doesn't matter whether she wants it and you want it.  NOTHING goes on.


You know, I read his statement earlier has referring to his daughter being a lesbian, and of course that's incorrect as to why she's being charged. But if he knows personally that she has a preference for jailbait, then his statement is 100% accurate, just not worth much as a defense.
 
2013-05-25 03:24:28 PM

Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent."

She's 18 and legally an adult. She could have told her lawyer to accept the plea deal, and faced an easy penalty for a crime she's admitted committing. She's chosen not to. Her parent's have chosen to spread FUD in a massive disinformation campaign, rightly relying on the fact that most people don't think twice about any news story, they accept the first version to reach their ears. Kate Hunt has chosen to ruin her own life, and her parents are eagerly helping that along. They can take care of her when she gets out of prison.


Again, and for the last time - quoting a law's existence is not proof that said law is right; that is a tautological argument. The impetus of this conversation is not what the law says, it's whether the law is written and applied appropriately. The mere fact that the law is being applied is irrelevant to its propriety. Whether or not Kate (18yo?) broke the law (she did) is also irrelevant to the law's propriety.

So, using your own words and reasoning - not the law's - explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.

Difficulty: neither  "slippery slope" nor "its too difficult a problem to solve" are acceptable.
 
2013-05-25 03:28:02 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent."

She's 18 and legally an adult. She could have told her lawyer to accept the plea deal, and faced an easy penalty for a crime she's admitted committing. She's chosen not to. Her parent's have chosen to spread FUD in a massive disinformation campaign, rightly relying on the fact that most people don't think twice about any news story, they accept the first version to reach their ears. Kate Hunt has chosen to ruin her own life, and her parents are eagerly helping that along. They can take care of her when she gets out of prison.

Again, and for the last time - quoting a law's existence is not proof that said law is right; that is a tautological argument. The impetus of this conversation is not what the law says, it's whether the law is written and applied appropriately. The mere fact that the law is being applied is irrelevant to its propriety. Whether or not Kate (18yo?) broke the law (she did) is also irrelevant to the law's propriety.

So, using your own words and reasoning - not the law's - explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.

Difficulty: neither  "slippery slope" nor "its too difficult a problem to solve" are acceptable.


Its the law.  If you want to change it, get it changed.  If you want to bang 14 year olds, say it loud and say it proud. There are plenty of laws and government programs I hate, I vote for people that support what I believe.  If you cant find a pro kiddy diddler candidate maybe your position just sucks.
 
2013-05-25 03:31:00 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent."

She's 18 and legally an adult. She could have told her lawyer to accept the plea deal, and faced an easy penalty for a crime she's admitted committing. She's chosen not to. Her parent's have chosen to spread FUD in a massive disinformation campaign, rightly relying on the fact that most people don't think twice about any news story, they accept the first version to reach their ears. Kate Hunt has chosen to ruin her own life, and her parents are eagerly helping that along. They can take care of her when she gets out of prison.

Again, and for the last time - quoting a law's existence is not proof that said law is right; that is a tautological argument. The impetus of this conversation is not what the law says, it's whether the law is written and applied appropriately. The mere fact that the law is being applied is irrelevant to its propriety. Whether or not Kate (18yo?) broke the law (she did) is also irrelevant to the law's propriety.

So, using your own words and reasoning - not the law's - explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.

Difficulty: neither  "slippery slope" nor "its too difficult a problem to solve" are acceptable.


So, we should just ignore those laws that we feel are not right?
 
2013-05-25 03:38:52 PM

Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Mock26: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: kazikian: Holographic Shimmering Pork: WhippingBoy: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Two consenting kids farking one another is not rape, statutory or otherwise.

You do understand what "statutory rape" means, don't you?

I see that you, too, believe the 18 year girl is a kid and not an adult. That's the whole point of this mess. Thanks for playing.

You do too, seeing as you called her a girl.

Yes, you're spot on...I don't think my position is unclear, though if you didn't read the post from which my original quote was taken, the above reply could be confusing. Both parties are kids, and neither deserves to have their lives farked about like this.

No. One is a kid, and one is an adult.

No, the law defines one as a kid and one as an adult. The law is not reality. The question is whether the law adequately represents reality. Science says it does not. Biology says it does not. Evolution says it does not. Medicine says it does not. Other laws say it does not (legal drinking age, for starters.) Stop being lazy and obtuse.

Stop beating your dead horse.  Obeying the law, laws which as a whole society has agreed to abide by, is not being lazy and obtuse.

Refusing to acknowledge that the law needs improvement is, in fact, lazy and obtuse. Addressing salient, important questions with "obey! law!!" is also lazy and obtuse. Failing to offer insight or suggestion on how to better address these problems is lazy and obtuse.

Writing one line responses is lazy and obtuse. You are lazy and obtuse. And an insipid bore.

Did I say that the law does not need improvement?  No.  I did not.  But, the laws are currently on the books and as such we should obey them.  That does not, however, preclude advocating that the law be changed.  So yeah, obey the law, because that is what being part of a civilized society means. 

As for a one line response, it is called being succinct.


There is a fine line between being succinct and being useless; unfortunately, you're often on the wrong side of it.

And yes, you clearly implied it does not need improvement. "Beating a dead horse" was, I believe, your response to my list of the many areas in which scientific discovery contradicts the law.

In your defense, you might be, in your head, arguing with someone else. At no point did I imply she did not break the law; in fact, I'm pretty sure no one on this entire thread is saying she didn't break the law. What people are saying is that the law has some significant, severe problems in its ability to be applied rationally. It is the very fact that she broke this law that is bringing light to the issue that the law itself is broken.
 
2013-05-25 03:40:00 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.


Well, for starters, because she's been warned of the consequences of that kind of behavior. Repeatedly. First through education, which does include explanations of age of consent laws. Second through popular culture, with terms such as "jailbait" leaving clear and ample warning. Third, when the parents of the underage girl, who have the legal, moral, and blood right to protect their child, give her fair warning twice that their daughter is not her sex toy. Fourth warning when arrested, and then offered a generous plea deal which is far lighter than that offered to most other sex offenders.

 She walked into the clearly labeled minefield, found the sign pointing straight down saying "There is a mine here. Stepping on it will ruin your life," danced on the mine, and the sign has just changed to "last warning, stop now." All of this has been by her choice. No one made her choose to commit sexual battery on a minor, no one forced her to ignore the warnings, no one held a gun to her head and said to take the girl from her home and commit sexual battery on her again, she has her own moral agency and she chose all of that. If anything is compelling her, it's her own nature as a predator.
 
rka
2013-05-25 03:43:59 PM

Mock26: So, we should just ignore those laws that we feel are not right?


Depends a lot on the likelihood of getting caught and on if you can handle the consequences. Also, it sometimes depends on whether you are engaging in civil disobedience.

I sometimes speed because I can handle the odd speeding ticket. Many people smoke MJ because the likelihood of getting caught is low and, in many jurisdictions (not all), the penalty is low. The Occupy protests had a lot of people violating trespassing or various other laws.
 
2013-05-25 03:44:50 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: What people are saying is that the law has some significant, severe problems in its ability to be applied rationally. It is the very fact that she broke this law that is bringing light to the issue that the law itself is broken.


No. The application of the law is perfectly reasonable here. The responsible adults for determining harm to the 14 year old victim are her parents. They tried simple reason, it did not work, so they decided to file charges. Now Kate Hunt gets to face two felony charges.

Your thinking would leave parents defenseless against child molesters if they happened to fall within some kind of protected class or age range.
 
2013-05-25 03:49:57 PM
this bullshiat is why I stopped actively dating when I turned 18 and was still in high school.
 
2013-05-25 03:52:52 PM

Brostorm: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Explain, if you would, how not wanting to have a high school student's life ruined for dating another high school student equates to "getting rid of age of consent."

She's 18 and legally an adult. She could have told her lawyer to accept the plea deal, and faced an easy penalty for a crime she's admitted committing. She's chosen not to. Her parent's have chosen to spread FUD in a massive disinformation campaign, rightly relying on the fact that most people don't think twice about any news story, they accept the first version to reach their ears. Kate Hunt has chosen to ruin her own life, and her parents are eagerly helping that along. They can take care of her when she gets out of prison.

Again, and for the last time - quoting a law's existence is not proof that said law is right; that is a tautological argument. The impetus of this conversation is not what the law says, it's whether the law is written and applied appropriately. The mere fact that the law is being applied is irrelevant to its propriety. Whether or not Kate (18yo?) broke the law (she did) is also irrelevant to the law's propriety.

So, using your own words and reasoning - not the law's - explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.

Difficulty: neither  "slippery slope" nor "its too difficult a problem to solve" are acceptable.

Its the law.  If you want to change it, get it changed.  If you want to bang 14 year olds, say it loud and say it proud. There are plenty of laws and government programs I hate, I vote for people that support what I believe.  If you cant find a pro kiddy diddler candidate maybe your position just sucks.


Someone please help me here - even those with whom I'm currently feuding: please help me explain how, in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child, I'm implying that a14yo be treated as an adult.

If an 18yo is still a kid, then a 14yo is still a kid too, right? If I can't bang an 18yo high school kid, then I certainly can't bang a 14yo high school kid, right? Am I wrong? Is my reasoning flawed? Please correct me if it is. Maybe someone sees some error of which I'm not aware. Brostorm?
 
2013-05-25 03:56:41 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Someone please help me here - even those with whom I'm currently feuding: please help me explain how, in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child, I'm implying that a14yo be treated as an adult.

If an 18yo is still a kid, then a 14yo is still a kid too, right? If I can't bang an 18yo high school kid, then I certainly can't bang a 14yo high school kid, right? Am I wrong? Is my reasoning flawed? Please correct me if it is. Maybe someone sees some error of which I'm not aware. Brostorm?


You actually CAN bang an 18 y/o with no legal repercussions unless you are her teacher or her boss. Now people might call you a pervert or something similar, but you won't be arrested for it.
 
2013-05-25 03:58:23 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child


Do you have evidence that Kate Hunt is developmentally disabled or otherwise not a moral agent? I believe her parent's have already claimed her as having good grades, voted "Miss School Spirit" or some such, is she somehow medically impaired below the capabilities of the many other 18 year old adults who somehow managed not to fark 14 year olds?
 
2013-05-25 03:58:42 PM

Tommy Moo: redslippers: Tommy Moo: redslippers: bukijin: To all that say that the law is just an arbitrary standard - that's all a law can ever be.

But the intent is simple: a 14 yr old is not capable of consenting to sex with an 18 yr old because of the uneven power dynamic.

Exactly. Perfectly stated.

I don't know. The problem with the law is that there's no grey area, but in the real world there is. There are age gaps where it starts to get kinda creepy and maybe sorta inappropriate, but to the law, you are either guilty as sin or pure as the driven snow. Over 20 with a 14 year old and I'd say lock her up, and I'd dare anyone to try to make it about homophobia. But at the same time, if this was 17/14 I don't think anyone would care. The power balance in their relationship didn't suddenly, dramatically shift on the day this girl turned 18.

That is where parenting comes in. The law has to delineate something, and this is a hell of a sight better than an unenforceable law on the books that reads "If everybody is creeped out, it's illegal". Or that leaves prosecution solely up to the discretion of the parents.

The law in Florida us clear that under 18 is jail bait. And if you are under a specific age, under 16 is jail bait. All teenagers know this law. In Indian River, it is actually taught in health class.

This law stands to protect kids with parents who don't care enough to, as well as provide teeth for parents to protect their children.

And you'd be hard pressed to find a parent of a fourteen year old girl who thinks this is "no big deal".

Right, but I'm saying the punishments don't have to be so binary. There could be a sliding scale for sentencing based on age gaps, with ranges available for juries or judges to massage a sentence in one direction or another for mitigating or aggravating circumstances.


They aren't binary. Read the statute, then read the sentencing statutes referenced within. There are many different levels of "wrong"covered. The statute itself makes clear that there are varying issues depending on age spread, age of the victim and age of the offender.
 
2013-05-25 03:59:49 PM
After reading nearly the entire thread, I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that what Kate did was illegal, that her actions harmed the 14 year-old (who was neither old enough nor mature enough to meaningfully consent), and that she should have taken the plea deal.

Goddam it so much.
 
2013-05-25 04:11:44 PM

cbathrob: After reading nearly the entire thread, I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that what Kate did was illegal, that her actions harmed the 14 year-old (who was neither old enough nor mature enough to meaningfully consent), and that she should have taken the plea deal.

Goddam it so much.


Since this is the first time you are posting about this subject, I must assume you were leaning towards the "It's just 2 teens" argument before you started reading the thread and have since changed you mind before you posted anything. Good on you. That is a rarity on Fark. So many people came in here with preconceptions and started spouting off, then had to double down on their opinion that was formed by misinformation.
 
2013-05-25 04:20:30 PM

Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: explain to me the mechanism by which one high school student should have her life destroyed via intimacy with another high school student.

Well, for starters, because she's been warned of the consequences of that kind of behavior. Repeatedly. First through education, which does include explanations of age of consent laws. Second through popular culture, with terms such as "jailbait" leaving clear and ample warning. Third, when the parents of the underage girl, who have the legal, moral, and blood right to protect their child, give her fair warning twice that their daughter is not her sex toy. Fourth warning when arrested, and then offered a generous plea deal which is far lighter than that offered to most other sex offenders.

 She walked into the clearly labeled minefield, found the sign pointing straight down saying "There is a mine here. Stepping on it will ruin your life," danced on the mine, and the sign has just changed to "last warning, stop now." All of this has been by her choice. No one made her choose to commit sexual battery on a minor, no one forced her to ignore the warnings, no one held a gun to her head and said to take the girl from her home and commit sexual battery on her again, she has her own moral agency and she chose all of that. If anything is compelling her, it's her own nature as a predator.
THE LAW!!


You did it again. I'm really not trying to be a dick, but your whole response can be summarized by "its the law." I understand it's the law. Everyone understands it's the law. It's not the existence of the law that is being debated. It is whether the law is appropriate as currently written. If not, then the discussion becomes how to begin fixing it. That discussion fails if the law is the reason for the law.

If your reasoning is that the law is appropriate by virtue of it being law, then you truly do have a morally ambiguous disposition. I don't believe that is the case.

Also - what, exactly, does the girl need to be protected from?  I can name a few concreteconsequences, like unwanted pregnancy, but that doesn't apply here. What else? Being used? Breaking up? Abandonment? Psychological harm? PTSD? Are the actions resulting in these consequences unique to18yo girls? Can they be achieved by 17yo girls? 16yo girls? 13yo boys?

Stated even better - what actions does the 14yo high school girl need to be protected from that are unique to a 18yo high school girl?

Somebody above stated something along the lines of no solutions being offered - an absolutely untrue statement. I offered some a while upthread and I'll offer another - being enrolled in high school is a much better metric than being 18. It is, at least, less arbitrary, and avoids the problem of dismantling a child's life before they are given the opportunity to be adults.
 
2013-05-25 04:23:10 PM

MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Someone please help me here - even those with whom I'm currently feuding: please help me explain how, in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child, I'm implying that a14yo be treated as an adult.

If an 18yo is still a kid, then a 14yo is still a kid too, right? If I can't bang an 18yo high school kid, then I certainly can't bang a 14yo high school kid, right? Am I wrong? Is my reasoning flawed? Please correct me if it is. Maybe someone sees some error of which I'm not aware. Brostorm?

You actually CAN bang an 18 y/o with no legal repercussions unless you are her teacher or her boss. Now people might call you a pervert or something similar, but you won't be arrested for it.


Right, that's my point...I'm advocating for the 18yo high school students to be treated as children. I'm confused as to how, as Brofart claimed, that means I want to bang 14yo kids.
 
2013-05-25 04:31:59 PM

cbathrob: After reading nearly the entire thread, I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that what Kate did was illegal, that her actions harmed the 14 year-old (who was neither old enough nor mature enough to meaningfully consent), and that she should have taken the plea deal.

Goddam it so much.


Why does this upset you so much?
 
2013-05-25 04:33:06 PM

Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child

Do you have evidence that Kate Hunt is developmentally disabled or otherwise not a moral agent? I believe her parent's have already claimed her as having good grades, voted "Miss School Spirit" or some such, is she somehow medically impaired below the capabilities of the many other 18 year old adults who somehow managed not to fark 14 year olds?


Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: in advocating for an 18yo high school kid to be treated as a child

Do you have evidence that Kate Hunt is developmentally disabled or otherwise not a moral agent? I believe her parent's have already claimed her as having good grades, voted "Miss School Spirit" or some such, is she somehow medically impaired below the capabilities of the many other 18 year old adults who somehow managed not to fark 14 year olds?


As devil's advocate: do you have evidence of the same regarding (name retracted)?

I'll help: you do not. You merely have a statute. A convenient fiction. A mechanism you are willing to apply to one high school student whose life responsibilities are spread between multiple custodial figures, and another high school student, in the same position, in which you are not.
 
2013-05-25 04:33:44 PM

cybrwzrd: This is awesome.

The dudes only arguement is to call anyone who disagrees with him a child rapist.


You two are in favor of child rape, so it fits. You should both do the world a favor, and just rape each other.
 
2013-05-25 04:34:41 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Somebody above stated something along the lines of no solutions being offered - an absolutely untrue statement. I offered some a while upthread and I'll offer another - being enrolled in high school is a much better metric than being 18. It is, at least, less arbitrary, and avoids the problem of dismantling a child's life before they are given the opportunity to be adults.


Are you advocating raising the age of majority? Right now it's 18, and you are fully responsible for yourself whether you are still in High School or not. If you are 18 in High School and drop out, neither your parents nor the school district have any say in the matter. If you are 17 and quit going, your parents will be dragged into court. You may call it arbitrary, but it is the age that has been decided by society, and won't change without a very compelling reason.
 
2013-05-25 04:36:58 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: I'm really not trying to be a dick


Which is funny, because it's the only thing you've succeeded at.

Being used? Breaking up? Abandonment? Psychological harm? PTSD?

STD's and other possible infections can be transmitted female to female, in addition to the above which you seem to feel is no big deal. Also, that same law you keep ignoring takes all of those other age ranges, that don't apply to this case at all, and includes them.

You are granting more authority over the 14 year old victim to Kate Hunt than to her own parents. Why are you having trouble understanding how despicable that is?
 
2013-05-25 04:38:51 PM

MarkEC: desertfool: A girl who was a Freshman on the same Varsity basketball team as the Senior? So, yeah, peers.

To a freshman on a varsity team, a senior in not a peer but a mentor. Seniors do not treat freshmen as peers, they treat them as underlings who need to be taught the game. That made Kate an authority figure to the younger girl. Kate was kicked off the team by the coach for abuse of that higher position.


OK, I read in the original thread and somewhere else, that she was kicked off the team because the coach didn't want 'drama'. That isn't the same as being a 'mentor'. I interpreted that as "the freshman is better than you, better to drop you than better player who I could send to Junior Varsity". Pure interpretation, I know, but when you are the coach you do what is best for the team.

Also, Boojum2k keeps stating that the 14 year olds parents told Kate TWICE to stop molesting their kid. Where do you get that from? I have seen nothing that stated that, but the Hunts are dominating the media, so if they did that bully for them. But telling Kate to stop, not talking to Kate's parents and not taking steps to stop their own daughter from seeing her girlfriend aren't considered.

Quite honestly, I think that the 14 year-old is the true lesbian. Kate was just 'experimenting'. When she finally figured out that she could prosecuted she stopped the relationship, then she was entrapped.
 
2013-05-25 04:41:32 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: As devil's advocate: do you have evidence of the same regarding (name retracted)?


I don't need to. We regard in this society, and with good scientific evidence too, that a 14 year old is a minor and subject to the authority of her parents, and is their responsibility.

So your argument twists suddenly from the 18 year old being too young to understand the penalty she is facing, to the 14 year old being mature enough to consent to sex barring some developmental defect, then back to 18 is too young to be an adult.

You're flailing about to defend a predator. I wonder why that is.
 
2013-05-25 04:45:34 PM

desertfool: Also, Boojum2k keeps stating that the 14 year olds parents told Kate TWICE to stop molesting their kid. Where do you get that from?


It's in the CNN interview with them.

desertfool: I think that the 14 year-old is the true lesbian. Kate was just 'experimenting'. When she finally figured out that she could prosecuted she stopped the relationship, then she was entrapped.


You're incredibly wrong, just from the affidavit. She was told to stop, or charges could be brought, then she took the 14 year old into her house overnight and had sex with her while the minors parents weren't aware of her location and thought she'd been kidnapped or something.

Kate Hunt is by all available evidence a predator. The lies her parents have been spreading looks strongly like a smokescreen to cover that up.
 
2013-05-25 04:47:13 PM

muck4doo: cybrwzrd: This is awesome.

The dudes only arguement is to call anyone who disagrees with him a child rapist.

You two are in favor of child rape, so it fits. You should both do the world a favor, and just rape each other.


MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: Somebody above stated something along the lines of no solutions being offered - an absolutely untrue statement. I offered some a while upthread and I'll offer another - being enrolled in high school is a much better metric than being 18. It is, at least, less arbitrary, and avoids the problem of dismantling a child's life before they are given the opportunity to be adults.

Are you advocating raising the age of majority? Right now it's 18, and you are fully responsible for yourself whether you are still in High School or not. If you are 18 in High School and drop out, neither your parents nor the school district have any say in the matter. If you are 17 and quit going, your parents will be dragged into court. You may call it arbitrary, but it is the age that has been decided by society, and won't change without a very compelling reason.


I'm advocating for a more reasonable approach than the one currently employed by most jurisdictions. In this case, the answer would be yes.

I pointed out upthread that the law itself is confused on the matter. You're right in your assertions re: dropping out of school. If those tangentially related laws can be used to support the 18yo age of adulthood, then so can the 21yo drinking age. Furthermore, how can one justify charging minors as adults for heinous crimes, if the age of adulthood is a hard 18?

If the 14yo in question had murdered or raped someone, she would, under certain circumstances, be charged as an adult. Why can't that metric be applied in reverse? Why shouldn't it be applied in reverse?

Most other laws have a large body of reason and rationality behind them.  This one does not, namely due to the fear that being reasonable = wanting to bang children.  See: d-bag a few posts up.
 
2013-05-25 04:49:48 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Right, that's my point...I'm advocating for the 18yo high school students to be treated as children. I'm confused as to how, as Brofart claimed, that means I want to bang 14yo kids.

You didn't advocate that you personally wanted to bang 14 y/o kids. You do however, by saying that an 18 y/o should be able to bang a 14 y/o, infer that a 14 y/o is capable of consenting. If a 14 y/o is capable of consenting, then what difference would it make how old the other person was?
As others have pointed out, a 17 y/o could be charged under the law for the same thing. The age difference during the school years is a big deal. A 13 y/o can be charge for diddling a 9 y/o. It did not magically become illegal just because the older girl is 18. The 18 y/o demarcation line is just when you are finally considered a full adult and completely in charge of yourself and therefore face stiffer penalties for doing the same thing.
 
2013-05-25 04:54:37 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: This one does not, namely due to the fear that being reasonable = wanting to bang children.


Yeah, you know what, sunshine? As somebody suggested earlier, why don't you start your own political movement and push to have the laws changed. I'm sure you'll get hordes of parents signing up to allow older teen predators to nail their children without recourse. You've already wavered around trying to find a way to make it acceptable that, in this one case, it was okay for an 18 year old to molest a 14 year old. "Reasonable" is not the word to describe your statements. "Morally suspect" is closer to the mark.
 
2013-05-25 04:57:29 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: If the 14yo in question had murdered or raped someone, she would, under certain circumstances, be charged as an adult. Why can't that metric be applied in reverse? Why shouldn't it be applied in reverse?


It was applied in reverse. The DA gave her a plea deal that was way lower than would have been given someone older.
 
2013-05-25 05:00:27 PM

Boojum2k: desertfool: Also, Boojum2k keeps stating that the 14 year olds parents told Kate TWICE to stop molesting their kid. Where do you get that from?

It's in the CNN interview with them.
desertfool: I think that the 14 year-old is the true lesbian. Kate was just 'experimenting'. When she finally figured out that she could prosecuted she stopped the relationship, then she was entrapped.

You're incredibly wrong, just from the affidavit. She was told to stop, or charges could be brought, then she took the 14 year old into her house overnight and had sex with her while the minors parents weren't aware of her location and thought she'd been kidnapped or something.

Kate Hunt is by all available evidence a predator. The lies her parents have been spreading looks strongly like a smokescreen to cover that up.


Can you provide a link? The only CNN story I saw had no comments from the 14-year-old parents.

Also, the Affidavit says nothing of the sort that you are alleging. Are you just making it up? Granted, the affidavit does describe acts that would be considered criminal under Florida law, but my reading of it is that the 14 year old ran away, and while a run-away was picked up by Kate.

What is your relationship to the case? I'm just a dude on the internet, no relation and no knowledge beyond what the media reports. You seem to have a passion about this.
 
2013-05-25 05:04:04 PM

Holographic Shimmering Pork: Most other laws have a large body of reason and rationality behind them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence#Changes_in_the_brain

So do these. Reasoning ability only really starts becoming adult-like at 15-16, so drawing the line at 16 protects the vast majority of children. Making adulthood and the overall age of consent 18 years old covers the vast majority of teens in developing adult reasoning and behavior.

That's often when predators begin, as they find that they may not be able to manipulate their peers, but as they are in contact with a large body of physically maturing but still childish teens, this gives them opportunities. The enormous weight of the law, combined with the protective power that law gives parents, suffices to keep most of them under control until they have matured further enough to control themselves.
 
2013-05-25 05:11:29 PM

desertfool: What is your relationship to the case? I'm just a dude on the internet, no relation and no knowledge beyond what the media reports. You seem to have a passion about this.


I hate manipulative liars. I read the initial Change.org petition, and was pretty outraged that someone would use the law to come down on a lesbian girl just for being a lesbian. Then I found out the actual facts behind the story, and realized the Hunt's were engaged in one of the most blatant hateful propaganda attacks I have ever seen.

I'm tired of this tactic, and have no regard for those who would use it. I see you've already begun to distort the story as well.

 my reading of it is that the 14 year old ran away, and while a run-away was picked up by Kate.

Who took her home and molested her. The missing child part comes from the interview with the minors parents.
 
2013-05-25 05:15:37 PM

desertfool: Boojum2k: desertfool: Also, Boojum2k keeps stating that the 14 year olds parents told Kate TWICE to stop molesting their kid. Where do you get that from?

It's in the CNN interview with them.
desertfool: I think that the 14 year-old is the true lesbian. Kate was just 'experimenting'. When she finally figured out that she could prosecuted she stopped the relationship, then she was entrapped.

You're incredibly wrong, just from the affidavit. She was told to stop, or charges could be brought, then she took the 14 year old into her house overnight and had sex with her while the minors parents weren't aware of her location and thought she'd been kidnapped or something.

Kate Hunt is by all available evidence a predator. The lies her parents have been spreading looks strongly like a smokescreen to cover that up.

Can you provide a link? The only CNN story I saw had no comments from the 14-year-old parents.

Also, the Affidavit says nothing of the sort that you are alleging. Are you just making it up? Granted, the affidavit does describe acts that would be considered criminal under Florida law, but my reading of it is that the 14 year old ran away, and while a run-away was picked up by Kate.

What is your relationship to the case? I'm just a dude on the internet, no relation and no knowledge beyond what the media reports. You seem to have a passion about this.


http://cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/exclusive-parents-underage -v ictim-kate-hunts-case-defend-actions-7597.shtml

Here.
 
2013-05-25 05:24:47 PM

Boojum2k: desertfool: What is your relationship to the case? I'm just a dude on the internet, no relation and no knowledge beyond what the media reports. You seem to have a passion about this.

I hate manipulative liars. I read the initial Change.org petition, and was pretty outraged that someone would use the law to come down on a lesbian girl just for being a lesbian. Then I found out the actual facts behind the story, and realized the Hunt's were engaged in one of the most blatant hateful propaganda attacks I have ever seen.

I'm tired of this tactic, and have no regard for those who would use it. I see you've already begun to distort the story as well.

 my reading of it is that the 14 year old ran away, and while a run-away was picked up by Kate.

Who took her home and molested her. The missing child part comes from the interview with the minors parents.


So I am a "manipulative liar'??? What did I lie about? As for distorting, I said "MY READING" because that is how I read it. No distortion there.

Did you distort when you said that the 14-year-olds parents contacted Kate twice yet can provide no link to the interview where you said you read it?

Where did you "find the facts"??? We are all at the hands of a media that can only report a few facts, especially because this involves a (legal) minor. You seem to have a deep understanding of this case. Where do you get it? Are you in the DA's office in whatever county this happened in?

Provide links to your facts. That is all I am asking.

/btw, you just got favorited. Just for arguing....
 
2013-05-25 05:28:58 PM

desertfool: Boojum2k: desertfool: What is your relationship to the case? I'm just a dude on the internet, no relation and no knowledge beyond what the media reports. You seem to have a passion about this.

I hate manipulative liars. I read the initial Change.org petition, and was pretty outraged that someone would use the law to come down on a lesbian girl just for being a lesbian. Then I found out the actual facts behind the story, and realized the Hunt's were engaged in one of the most blatant hateful propaganda attacks I have ever seen.

I'm tired of this tactic, and have no regard for those who would use it. I see you've already begun to distort the story as well.

 my reading of it is that the 14 year old ran away, and while a run-away was picked up by Kate.

Who took her home and molested her. The missing child part comes from the interview with the minors parents.

So I am a "manipulative liar'??? What did I lie about? As for distorting, I said "MY READING" because that is how I read it. No distortion there.

Did you distort when you said that the 14-year-olds parents contacted Kate twice yet can provide no link to the interview where you said you read it?

Where did you "find the facts"??? We are all at the hands of a media that can only report a few facts, especially because this involves a (legal) minor. You seem to have a deep understanding of this case. Where do you get it? Are you in the DA's office in whatever county this happened in?

Provide links to your facts. That is all I am asking.

/btw, you just got favorited. Just for arguing....


Look up, I found and posted the link in my second response.
I added you to favorites too, "This one fights"
 
2013-05-25 05:29:24 PM

Boojum2k: Holographic Shimmering Pork: As devil's advocate: do you have evidence of the same regarding (name retracted)?

I don't need to. We regard in this society, and with good scientific evidence too, that a 14 year old is a minor and subject to the authority of her parents, and is their responsibility.

So your argument twists suddenly from the 18 year old being too young to understand the penalty she is facing, to the 14 year old being mature enough to consent to sex barring some developmental defect, then back to 18 is too young to be an adult.

You're flailing about to defend a predator. I wonder why that is.


Wait, you're kidding me - nothing but ad hominems?

You may try, one of these days, to answer the questions asked instead of responding to what you think they mean. You may think you sound reasonable, but you mainly just sound like a twat.

I've made no argument of the kind. I asked you a question, which you failed to answer; further, you hid behind an offensive, blind ad hominem in order to deflect said question. A question is not an argument. My question is, for the sake of discourse, what consequences are unique to the actions of a 18yo high school student? I want to know what you think they are, not what you assume or have been told they are. What are they? Objectively, what are they? Or do we not need objective discourse from which we can determine more appropriate, rational laws and punishments? Maybe we should just grab the pitchforks, eh?

And really? Science says 14 years old is a minor? Minor is a legal term, not a biological term. There is no science anywhere claiming that a 14yo is a minor. There are only studies explaining the physical development of a child's brain; studies that show an 18 year old's brain is is closer to a 14 year old's than to an adults. You don't even understand the words that are appearing on your screen, do you? And you accuse me of flailing.

Here is a branch of the US government directly contradicting your Wikipedia link:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-und er -construction/index.shtml

another contradiction:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

another, from MIT:
http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

another:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs -t ext

Let me know if you need more. Or are you the one that is going to stand up to these experts?
 
2013-05-25 05:31:28 PM

WhippingBoy: cbathrob: After reading nearly the entire thread, I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that what Kate did was illegal, that her actions harmed the 14 year-old (who was neither old enough nor mature enough to meaningfully consent), and that she should have taken the plea deal.

Goddam it so much.

Why does this upset you so much?


Because I wish that this was a victimless crime, with no harm done to anyone? Because I wanted to believe the narrative that Kate was being persecuted for being gay rather than rightly charged with being a predetor? Because the truth appears to be messier and grimmer than I want it to be? Because the anti-gay crowd will use this to their advantage? Take your pick. Accepting reality doesn't mean I have to like it.
 
2013-05-25 05:38:19 PM

MarkEC: Holographic Shimmering Pork: If the 14yo in question had murdered or raped someone, she would, under certain circumstances, be charged as an adult. Why can't that metric be applied in reverse? Why shouldn't it be applied in reverse?

It was applied in reverse. The DA gave her a plea deal that was way lower than would have been given someone older.


I understand your point, which may well be true, but that was not my point. My point was that the charges themselves should have the metric applied to them, not merely the consequences of the charges. A felony conviction itself, with no additional punishment, is an enormous punishment.
 
2013-05-25 05:40:13 PM
Look up, I found and posted the link in my second response.
I added you to favorites too, "This one fights"


Only when drinking :)

Watched the link, and it was interesting. Still, not going to the parents of Kate first was a bad move. She may  have been 18, but her parents would have been able to tell her to stop.

Honestly, I still think it is two kids who are in over their heads. I think the ones who should be prosecuted are parents, on both sides.

/I'm a liberal. My positions can change when provided with new information.
 
2013-05-25 05:40:38 PM

cbathrob: WhippingBoy: cbathrob: After reading nearly the entire thread, I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that what Kate did was illegal, that her actions harmed the 14 year-old (who was neither old enough nor mature enough to meaningfully consent), and that she should have taken the plea deal.

Goddam it so much.

Why does this upset you so much?

Because I wish that this was a victimless crime, with no harm done to anyone? Because I wanted to believe the narrative that Kate was being persecuted for being gay rather than rightly charged with being a predetor? Because the truth appears to be messier and grimmer than I want it to be? Because the anti-gay crowd will use this to their advantage? Take your pick. Accepting reality doesn't mean I have to like it.


Fair enough. My reason for asking is that there's far worse things than this every day, and while this one certainly isn't very nice, it seems to be getting far more attention than it deserves. I'm just trying to figure out why that is.
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report