German man castrates teenage daughter's 57-year-old boyfriend

[Joe King]

I stand for freedom and Liberty for all people to have free will and self determination over their own lives. You know, that pesky little principle that our entire Nation was founded upon?



So you DO believe this private matter between a father and his 17 year-old daughter's predator chosen BF is no business of Government.

:D
Sure. Just so long as there are no crimes commited in doing so.
BTW, fixed your post for you. No charge. ;)

[Joe King]

No, I'm saying they should get involved once a crime against another person has occurred. i.e. when the nutz got chopped is when that happened.



Ever notice how jews always demand that LAW ENFORCEMENT and the POLICE get involved with what should be a personal matter between a father and his 17 year-old daughter's predator? So much for Joe King's spiel here about "freedom" and "personal responsibility" and the big bad government...lol.

:ROFL:


Of course they should get involved once the "dad" committed attempted murder, which is a serious crime in case you didn't know.

A girl over the age of consent picking who she wants for a BF is not a crime.
You can't use a crime to remedy a non-crime.

Aren't you smart enough to realize that fact?

[Book]

The problem is that some people are only capable of seeing this issue from the standpoint of it being their daughter geezer predator within the legal circumstances that they themselves live.

It's also because they want to protect their children jewish uncle from the temptations of the World in which they live. While commendable, they're doing so under the illusion that they're aware of everything going on in their lives. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Which actually ends up doing a dis-service to the children geezer predator jewish uncle once they do attain the age of consent protective fathers in that they tend to find themselves woefully unprepared castrated to face those temptations in such a way that it doesn't consume them.

Case in point, 17yo girl 57yo predator who wants to have a 57yo BF 17yo victim.

As I already posted, something certainly didn't get covered during her upbringing, and it's too late to start now. At this point you'd need to let her him learn her his own mistake{s} and be there to help pick up the pieces testicles, should that become necessary. I mean, don't you people have unconditional love for your offspring geezer predator jewish uncle?

Remember, to err is to be human.



BTW, fixed it for you Joe. No need to involve the Police or Government in this private matter between a father and his 17 year-old daughter's predator. You being so adamant about "personal responsibility" and all buddy.

|--0--|

[Book]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID5043/images/6a00d8341c501653ef00e5502a05398833-800wi_1__1_.jpg

http://joeljamescomedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/44092768_venicewoodypa300b.jpg

http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/woody-allen-soon-yi.jpg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133edd4ac56970b-600wi
Oy Vey! What's this "age of consent" stuff?

[Joe King]

Still trying to make one these, I see.

lol lol

[Fortyone]

Baseless? I think not,one only has to go back and read you and your pal's posts to see the way you twist things. Its not up to me to prove it Mayhem, people can read!Your entire response in this thread has been of the Globalist/Zionist agenda, anyone can see that.

Yes, baseless. I stand for freedom and Liberty for all people to have free will and self determination over their own lives.
You know, that pesky little principle that our entire Nation was founded upon?

It's pretty obvious that you don't believe in that prinviple.




Your subtle shift from "Age of Majority" and "She's not a minor", into "Age of Consent" is reminiscent of the suble shift from "Global Warming" into "Climate Change".

Nice try.
Within the context of the article in the OP, they all mean the same thing. It is you who are twisting terms and mis-applying them to change the circumstances of the issue in a vain attempt to support your desires to impose your will upon that of another legal age human being. Namely the daughter in the OP.


HA HA! Back in those days he would have had an "accident" or outright lynched. You stand for Government meddling in private affairs.

[Joe King]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol

[Fortyone]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol



Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.

[RJB]

Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.
Good point.

If the 57 year old was so pure and virtuous why didn't he approach the father and ask for his daughters hand as they did when people married at younger ages?

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.

The family was the traditional core of morality. With welfare and other destructive forces of the government, the family core is being shattered and the government is taking on the roll of moral police man. The defense of the 57 year old creep is precisely why we have government intrusion.

[Joe King]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol



Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.
You expect us to fall for yours when you insist on comparing obviously illegal situations with those that aren't, in a vain attempt to make your point.

I, on the other hand, was giving real examples of times from our own past that permitted what today would be considered blatently illegal.
...but I realize that it's easier to just forget the somewhat distasteful parts of those "times".

Keep in mind too that those days weren't all that long ago, either.

[Book]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course

[Joe King]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town? Same thing, right?

:yawn:


Next

[Book]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

[Joe King]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D


Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.

:yawn:

[Book]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.



Can't you get it through thick your skull that real fathers will protect their daughters even after age 18?

:)

[Fortyone]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol



Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.
You expect us to fall for yours when you insist on comparing obviously illegal situations with those that aren't, in a vain attempt to make your point.

I, on the other hand, was giving real examples of times from our own past that permitted what today would be considered blatently illegal.
...but I realize that it's easier to just forget the somewhat distasteful parts of those "times".

Keep in mind too that those days weren't all that long ago, either.


Perhaps you are bored of the thread as you seem on yawning? Or is that just a attempt to make yourself look superior? Please enlighten us on your definition of the "Distasteful" parts of those times

[Fortyone]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.



Can't you get it through thick your skull that real fathers will protect their daughters even after age 18?

:)



No,he cant, you cant fix Zionism.

[Joe King]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.



Can't you get it through thick your skull that real fathers will protect their daughters even after age 18?

:)
Well, duh! ::)

However, unwanted and/or illegal actions do not constitute protection.

Can't you get it through your even thicker skull that we have laws against one imposing unwanted "help" upon other people? lol

[Fortyone]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.



Can't you get it through thick your skull that real fathers will protect their daughters even after age 18?

:)
Well, duh! ::)

However, unwanted and/or illegal actions do not constitute protection.

Can't you get it through your even thicker skull that we have laws against one imposing unwanted "help" upon other people? lol




"We have laws",Thats rich! "We" also have laws that require you to submit to Govt. agencies,not speak your mind concerning groups or its a hate crime, show your ID or get shot,and steal your money, you believe in all those too Joe?

[Joe King]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol



Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.
You expect us to fall for yours when you insist on comparing obviously illegal situations with those that aren't, in a vain attempt to make your point.

I, on the other hand, was giving real examples of times from our own past that permitted what today would be considered blatently illegal.
...but I realize that it's easier to just forget the somewhat distasteful parts of those "times".

Keep in mind too that those days weren't all that long ago, either.


Perhaps you are bored of the thread as you seem on yawning? Or is that just a attempt to make yourself look superior? Please enlighten us on your definition of the "Distasteful" parts of those times


The distasteful parts are those from times that people harken to, but like to forget about certain unpleasant things......like marrying children off to older men by the age of 13 or 14, and having children soon thereafter.


I yawned because I do grow weary of the constant repitition of non-comparisons being made by those that seem to be supporting tribalism in that the dad of the clan gets final say over anything to do with "his" childrens lives up until he says otherwise. That the agreed upon law of the land need not apply.

[Fortyone]

"Those days"? ???

To which days of the past is it that you are referring?

Perhaps to the days when our ancestors would have girls the married off by the age of 14? lol

That's how it used to work y'know, and it was socially accepted. Personally speaking, I'm glad we don't do that anymore.

I believe the Bible even talks of relations with what is considered today to be illegally young girls. Not to mention incestually
...and in this thread we're not even discussing an illegal act relative to the girl and her "bf", but that of the dad trying to somehow protect that which merely exists in his own head. i.e. his daughters "purity". lol



Im referring to the period you mentioned,dont play doge-ems,Im not falling for it, and neither is most of the board, You may think everyone here is stupid, but your wrong. You are correct, they did marry girls off early back then, 13, 14, 15 etc. but not to grandfather aged husbands.
You expect us to fall for yours when you insist on comparing obviously illegal situations with those that aren't, in a vain attempt to make your point.

I, on the other hand, was giving real examples of times from our own past that permitted what today would be considered blatently illegal.
...but I realize that it's easier to just forget the somewhat distasteful parts of those "times".

Keep in mind too that those days weren't all that long ago, either.


Perhaps you are bored of the thread as you seem on yawning? Or is that just a attempt to make yourself look superior? Please enlighten us on your definition of the "Distasteful" parts of those times


The distasteful parts are those from times that people harken to, but like to forget about certain unpleasant things......like marrying children off to older men by the age of 13 or 14, and having children soon thereafter.


I yawned because I do grow weary of the constant repitition of non-comparisons being made by those that seem to be supporting tribalism in that the dad of the clan gets final say over anything to do with "his" childrens lives up until he says otherwise. That the agreed upon law of the land need not apply.


Well thats all good until you realize the Germans had very little to do with making their laws.Take a shot on the writers of their legal system?

[Joe King]

What happens when the 57 year old knocks the girl up and skips town? There is a reason why families stick together.



Then Joe King would expect the girl's father to "get involved" and pay for the kid or make us taxpayers pay for it.

;) Joe already knows this of course


So what happens when someone close to a girls own age knocks her up and skips town?



You and your uncle tag-teaming now?

:D

Quit with your juvenile insults and just answer the question.



Can't you get it through thick your skull that real fathers will protect their daughters even after age 18?

:)
Well, duh! ::)

However, unwanted and/or illegal actions do not constitute protection.

Can't you get it through your even thicker skull that we have laws against one imposing unwanted "help" upon other people? lol




"We have laws",Thats rich! "We" also have laws that require you to submit to Govt. agencies,not speak your mind concerning groups or its a hate crime, show your ID or get shot,and steal your money, you believe in all those too Joe?
I belive in the fact that a complacent and apathetic population obvioulsy didn't care what was being done in their or their childrens names.
i.e. they took the "gov's on autopilot" approach and now this generation will pay the price.

We have the system our parents and grandparents built for us.
Are you saying you're not enjoying all the creamy goodness they saw fit to provide? lol

[RJB]

The distasteful parts are those from times that people harken to, but like to forget about certain unpleasant things......like marrying children off to older men by the age of 13 or 14, and having children soon thereafter. You seem to not mind a 57 year old doing it with a child behind the parent's back, but heaven forbid they approach the family and ask to marry...

[Fortyone]

[11 June 1994]
§ 182 Sexual abuse of young people § 182 Sexual abuse of young people
(1) If a person under eighteen years by (1) A person over eighteen years that a person under sixteen years of this abuse that they
abused, that he taking advantage of a predicament First taking advantage of a predicament or a fee
First sexual acts on their expenditure or from it make to be or sexual acts on her or makes from it to make leaves or
2. they intended to perform sexual acts on a third party or have it out by a third party in itself, 2. this by exploiting a coercive situation intended to perform sexual acts on a third party or it can be done to allow a third party,
shall be punished with imprisonment up to five years or a fine. shall be punished with imprisonment up to five years or a fine.


Above is the law that was enacted in 1994 under the "reunification" It was basically a carbon copy of the Zionist/Communist DDR version.
Notice, the Girl in question was BARELY over the legal limit under this code for even the DDR.




Below is the law observed by the Original Reich until Reunification.

Penal Code for the German Reich on 15 May 1871

Special Section
Thirteenth Section. Crimes against sexual self-determination
Clause 182nd Sexual abuse of young people
[4 November 2008]
1 § 182 . Sexual abuse of young people.

2 (1) Any person under eighteen years of abuse by one, he taking advantage of a predicament
First sexual acts on their expenditure or from it or can make to
Second they intended to perform sexual acts on a third party or it can be done to allow a third party,
shall be punished with imprisonment up to five years or a fine.
3 (2) Likewise, a person convicted of eighteen years, the person under eighteen years of abuse by one, they pay her to carry out sexual acts against or from it can make to.
4 (3) A person twenty-one years, the person under sixteen years of abuse of a fact that they
First sexual acts on their expenditure or from it or can make to
Second they intended to perform sexual acts on a third party or it can be done to allow a third party,
while exploiting the lack of ability of the victim to sexual self-determination, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine.
5 (4) The attempt is punishable.
6 (5) In the cases of paragraph 3 Indeed, the only tracks on the request, except that the law enforcement authority of the special public interest in prosecuting an intervention of its own motion deems necessary motion.
7 (6) In the cases of paragraphs 1 to 3, the court waive the penalty under these regulations when considering the behavior of the person against whom the action is directed to the injustice of the act is low at.

[Joe King]

Notice, the Girl in question was BARELY over the legal limit under this code for even the DDR.

So you finally admit that she was legally recognized by the accepted law of her land to do that which she wished with her own body?

Thank you for providing the proof that establishes the point I made at least 5 pages ago.


When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.

[solid]

When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.



There's no actual speed limit though Joe, it's technically worded speed for conditions. Meaning, if you were doing 60 in a 55 zone, but nobody is around, dry weather, good visibility, etc...you could fight that ticket if you could prove the conditions were favorable.

My point is, most 17 year olds are not mature enough for "conditions". Regardless what the law says. How many young women end up prostitutes, the sex trade is a huge business, or pornography.

The wolves are out there pacing, ready to pounce on any young bright eyed woman. Fact is there's predators out there. Young women need to be protected, fvck the "law".

Each situation, and each person is different...but if I had daughters, your damn right I would step up to anyone who may cause them harm.

[Fortyone]

Notice, the Girl in question was BARELY over the legal limit under this code for even the DDR.

So you finally admit that she was legally recognized by the accepted law of her land to do that which she wished with her own body?

Thank you for providing the proof that establishes the point I made at least 5 pages ago.


When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.










IF you consider the "law" of a Stalinist nation (DDR) valid, Most Germans do not.You havent made any point.You are standing up for the "Law" VS Morals of the entire nation, and have not answered my question, WHO wrote that law? Zionists, You are clearly in league with them.Under article 175,(A article that you be surprised to know the Nazis expanded even on)Which is still in effect PROHIBITS sexual favors from anyone under 18 years of age for gifts or compensation, IF the Father's attys can prove he even gave her so much as a flower,the 57 yr old perv you are rabidly defending has also committed a crime.What you are missing is Germany's broad view of Sexual relations, It is even younger,14, IF the partner is under 18, etc. Under German Law, If he bought her ANYTHING or gave her ANYTHING ,and then they had sex, he is in violation. Also, while being charged with "Attempted Murder" the actual charge will be most likely assault with intent to mutilate.(Yes that is an actual German statute.)

In Germany, sexual intercourse is legal from the age of 14 in most cases. An exception is when the older partner is aged over 18 and is "exploiting a coercive situation", where compensation is offered, in return for sex, in which case the younger person must be aged over 18 years.

[Joe King]

When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.



There's no actual speed limit though Joe, it's technically worded speed for conditions. Meaning, if you were doing 60 in a 55 zone, but nobody is around, dry weather, good visibility, etc...you could fight that ticket if you could prove the conditions were favorable.
Good luck with that approach when there's "money" for the city to be made. lol

By admitting you were driving above the limit, you are admitting guilt and falling upon the mercy of a nearly always mereciless Court.
Besides, the Code will have all recognized defenses to prosecution listed. "Clear road ahead" isn't one of them for speeding.


My point is, most 17 year olds are not mature enough for "conditions". Regardless what the law says. How many young women end up prostitutes, the sex trade is a huge business, or pornography.
In the case of such things, the accepted remedy is to set an age. Sorry. It's just the way it is.



The wolves are out there pacing, ready to pounce on any young bright eyed woman. Fact is there's predators out there. Young women need to be protected, fvck the "law".Which reitterates my point about bringing them up with the tools they'll need in order to deal with it.


Each situation, and each person is different...but if I had daughters, your damn right I would step up to anyone who may cause them harm.

But if they're over the age of consent, you can only do so if they request your help/protection. Otherwise it's simply a form of dictatorship.
Like a Chairman Mao "mini-me" lol

[Fortyone]

When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.



There's no actual speed limit though Joe, it's technically worded speed for conditions. Meaning, if you were doing 60 in a 55 zone, but nobody is around, dry weather, good visibility, etc...you could fight that ticket if you could prove the conditions were favorable.
Good luck with that approach when there's "money" for the city to be made. lol

By admitting you were driving above the limit, you are admitting guilt and falling upon the mercy of a nearly always mereciless Court.
Besides, the Code will have all recognized defenses to prosecution listed. "Clear road ahead" isn't one of them for speeding.


My point is, most 17 year olds are not mature enough for "conditions". Regardless what the law says. How many young women end up prostitutes, the sex trade is a huge business, or pornography.
In the case of such things, the accepted remedy is to set an age. Sorry. It's just the way it is.



The wolves are out there pacing, ready to pounce on any young bright eyed woman. Fact is there's predators out there. Young women need to be protected, fvck the "law".Which reitterates my point about bringing them up with the tools they'll need in order to deal with it.


Each situation, and each person is different...but if I had daughters, your damn right I would step up to anyone who may cause them harm.

But if they're over the age of consent, you can only do so if they request your help/protection. Otherwise it's simply a form of dictatorship.
Like a Chairman Mao "mini-me" lol


Thats it Joe,Keep up the agenda.... COMPLY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

[Joe King]

Notice, the Girl in question was BARELY over the legal limit under this code for even the DDR.

So you finally admit that she was legally recognized by the accepted law of her land to do that which she wished with her own body?

Thank you for providing the proof that establishes the point I made at least 5 pages ago.


When it comes down to age things, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Just like a speed limit.
i.e. you're either under it, or over it.










IF you consider the "law" of a Stalinist nation (DDR) valid, Most Germans do not.You havent made any point.You are standing up for the "Law" VS Morals of the entire nation, and have not answered my question, WHO wrote that law? Zionists, You are clearly in league with them.Under article 175,(A article that you be surprised to know the Nazis expanded even on)Which is still in effect PROHIBITS sexual favors from anyone under 18 years of age for gifts or compensation, IF the Father's attys can prove he even gave her so much as a flower,the 57 yr old perv you are rabidly defending has also committed a crime.What you are missing is Germany's broad view of Sexual relations, It is even younger,14, IF the partner is under 18, etc. Under German Law, If he bought her ANYTHING or gave her ANYTHING ,and then they had sex, he is in violation. Also, while being charged with "Attempted Murder" the actual charge will be most likely assault with intent to mutilate.(Yes that is an actual German statute.)

In Germany, sexual intercourse is legal from the age of 14 in most cases. An exception is when the older partner is aged over 18 and is "exploiting a coercive situation", where compensation is offered, in return for sex, in which case the younger person must be aged over 18 years.


You're the one who posted it. I assumed you were posting the current law that the authorities who refused to do anything were following. You yourself said she was over the limit, albeit barely.

It doesn't matter what you say based upon your opinion.
The fact remains that the dad only felt that he had to do what he did because no one else {police} would do anything due to the girl having been of legal age.

Had she not been, he could have had the 57yo arrested.
The fact they wouldn't do that says all that needs to be said about this.

[Fortyone]

Joe, we can end this this way, you are a Jew troll, nothing more, Ive had it with your stupid logic its all an agenda.Book,Awoke, CC, and others you are all welcome to visit the other site, The rest of you that side with this Rabbi can stay here. this is what GSUS has become? People defending pedophile activity? Ol Rabbi Joe wants to make the "Law" forced on Germany by the Zionists superior to moral laws. Good luck Jew King.

[Book]

The fact remains that the dad only felt that he had to do what he did because no one else {police} would do anything due to the girl having been of legal age.



You think those same cops would do nothing if she were their daughter?

:D

[Joe King]

Joe, we can end this this way, you are a Jew troll, nothing more, Ive had it with your stupid logic its all an agenda.Book,Awoke, CC, and others you are all welcome to visit the other site, The rest of you that side with this Rabbi can stay here. this is what GSUS has become? People defending pedophile activity? Ol Rabbi Joe wants to make the "Law" forced on Germany by the Zionists superior to moral laws. Good luck Jew King.
Wow. You really think that Gods gift of free will and the principle of self determination are "stupid"? Really?

Really really?

It's only pedo if the law of the land in question says it is. If it was, the police would have surely done something, right? Did they, or didn't they?

[Joe King]

The fact remains that the dad only felt that he had to do what he did because no one else {police} would do anything due to the girl having been of legal age.



You think those same cops would do nothing if she were their daughter?

:D


So what's your point? Anyone can choose to commit attempted murder. Including police officers.

Some of them may choose to speed occasionally, or even beat their wives.
...and you know what? they too think they're justified when doing so.

[Book]

...and you know what? they too think they're justified when doing so.



http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/79675769.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215AB089EE596C65881B48520F210AF0A1 461D3BF84983D28D5846D59F6A75EF85

Woody Allen also read that in his Talmud.

:oo-->

[Joe King]

...and you know what? they too think they're justified when doing so.



http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/79675769.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215AB089EE596C65881B48520F210AF0A1 461D3BF84983D28D5846D59F6A75EF85

Woody Allen also read that in his Talmud.

:oo-->
So again, where do you draw the line on what other legal-age adults do?

As far as I know, the Woody Allen issue also involves two people of legal age who did not break any laws. So what can be done about it? Is the law ok until the mob thinks it isn't, and then they impose tribal justice? Is that what you support?

[Book]

As far as I know, the Woody Allen issue also involves two people of legal age who did not break any laws. So what can be done about it?



http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/84678785.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5480C26995FD75B3773 A040A8716DA80654484646E632F3BEC5E30A760B0D811297

Yeah...Woody Allen waited until his adopted daughter was "of legal age" before he finally married her. You have no problem with this. Must be that Talmud thingie...

:oo-->

[Joe King]

As far as I know, the Woody Allen issue also involves two people of legal age who did not break any laws. So what can be done about it?



http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/84678785.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5480C26995FD75B3773 A040A8716DA80654484646E632F3BEC5E30A760B0D811297

Yeah...Woody Allen waited until his adopted daughter was "of legal age" before he finally married her. You have no problem with this. Must be that Talmud thingie...

:oo-->
Personally I think it strange, but as long as no laws were broken and she's not complaining, then for us to forceably to break them up is to commit an illegal act.
...and I don't support commiting illegal acts against other people who aren't committing crimes against persons, themselves. Do you? You seem to.

[Book]

As far as I know, the Woody Allen issue also involves two people of legal age who did not break any laws. So what can be done about it?



http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/84678785.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5480C26995FD75B3773 A040A8716DA80654484646E632F3BEC5E30A760B0D811297

Yeah...Woody Allen waited until his adopted daughter was "of legal age" before he finally married her. You have no problem with this. Must be that Talmud thingie...

:oo-->
Personally I think it strange, but as long as no laws were broken and she's not complaining, then for us to forceably to break them up is to commit an illegal act...and I don't support committing illegal acts against other people who aren't committing crimes against persons, themselves. Do you? You seem to.


http://www.bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/woody-allen-win-american-apparel-lawsuit-5-million.jpg

Your hero adopted a little Asian girl then raised her to eventually marry HIM.

:oo-->

[Joe King]

Was he in fact her father? Did they live under the same roof as dad and daughter? Does she complain about it? Surely she's old enough to know if he did anything he wasn't supposed to while she was underage.


Bottom line, regardless of what I may think of that relationship, I realize there's nothing that can be done about it. Sharia law sure could though. Is that what you support?

[Book]

Was he in fact her father? Did they live under the same roof as dad and daughter? Does she complain about it? Surely she's old enough to know if he did anything he wasn't supposed to while she was underage. Bottom line, regardless of what I may think of that relationship, I realize there's nothing that can be done about it....



Is that what your Talmud teaches you?

:o

[Joe King]

Was he in fact her father? Did they live under the same roof as dad and daughter? Does she complain about it? Surely she's old enough to know if he did anything he wasn't supposed to while she was underage. Bottom line, regardless of what I may think of that relationship, I realize there's nothing that can be done about it....



Is that what your Talmud teaches you?

:o
I don't have one of those, but I'm sure that you do.

[RJB]

Like watching a tennis match.

Book's turn :D

[Book]

Was he in fact her father? Did they live under the same roof as dad and daughter? Does she complain about it? Surely she's old enough to know if he did anything he wasn't supposed to while she was underage. Bottom line, regardless of what I may think of that relationship, I realize there's nothing that can be done about it...



:oo-->


Allen and Farrow’s biological son, Ronan Seamus Farrow, said of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent... I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children."

You are kinda creepy Joe King to keep posting your Talmudic morality in the face of these known facts.

[Joe King]

He, as well as anyone else, is permitted to feel about it however they wish. Same as you and I.

The question is, what can you do about it that isn't recognized as committing a crime?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that anyone has to like a particular situation, but to simply have the ability to accept that people of a certain age have the Right to choose for themselves.

Either you want freedom for all people, or you don't.
Part of that is accepting that sometimes we'll think others make bad choices, but that ultimately their life choices are up to them..

[Book]

He, as well as anyone else, is permitted to feel about it however they wish. Same as you and I.

The question is, what can you do about it that isn't recognized as committing a crime?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that anyone has to like a particular situation, but to simply have the ability to accept that people of a certain age have the Right to choose for themselves.

Either you want freedom for all people, or you don't.
Part of that is accepting that sometimes we'll think others make bad choices, but that ultimately their life choices are up to them..


You creep me out Joe.

[Joe King]

Why?

Is it because I won't Judge others, as you rush to do?

[Awoke]

Can't you get it through your even thicker skull that we have laws against one imposing unwanted "help" upon other people? lol


There you go being psychic again.

It's amazing that you just "know" these "facts".

::)

[Awoke]

It's only pedo if the law of the land in question says it is. If it was, the police would have surely done something, right? Did they, or didn't they?


Is that the answer to my question that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked "If they made age of majority to be six years old, it would be OK for him to have sex with her?"

...or is that the answer to the other question I asked, that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked if man-made laws can trump Moral code?

[DMac]

It's only pedo if the law of the land in question says it is. If it was, the police would have surely done something, right? Did they, or didn't they?


Is that the answer to my question that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked "If they made age of majority to be six years old, it would be OK for him to have sex with her?"

...or is that the answer to the other question I asked, that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked if man-made laws can trump Moral code?


You beat me to it Awoke, thanks, and I remember you asking about this exact point pages ago. That is a shameful post by Joe King.

"If the law says it's OK, then I'm all for it!"

Sick.

[Book]

It's only pedo if the law of the land in question says it is. If it was, the police would have surely done something, right? Did they, or didn't they?


Is that the answer to my question that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked "If they made age of majority to be six years old, it would be OK for him to have sex with her?"

...or is that the answer to the other question I asked, that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked if man-made laws can trump Moral code?


You beat me to it Awoke, thanks, and I remember you asking about this exact point pages ago. That is a shameful post by Joe King.

"If the law says it's OK, then I'm all for it!"

Sick.



He creeps me out now.

[G2Rad]

It's only pedo if the law of the land in question says it is. If it was, the police would have surely done something, right? Did they, or didn't they?


Is that the answer to my question that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked "If they made age of majority to be six years old, it would be OK for him to have sex with her?"

...or is that the answer to the other question I asked, that I thought you would never answer?

The one where I asked if man-made laws can trump Moral code?


You beat me to it Awoke, thanks, and I remember you asking about this exact point pages ago. That is a shameful post by Joe King.

"If the law says it's OK, then I'm all for it!"

Sick.
if they don't like a particular law , they will vote it down.

[chad]

there are all sorts of things in life that are legal, although nonetheless shitty behavior.

the difference between being "an animal" or "a person" is the ability to recognize these things and avoid doing them.

[Awoke]

You beat me to it Awoke, thanks, and I remember you asking about this exact point pages ago. That is a shameful post by Joe King.

"If the law says it's OK, then I'm all for it!"

Sick.
if they don't like a particular law , they will vote it down.


Umm, you believe that? Are you joking or serious?

[G2Rad]

You beat me to it Awoke, thanks, and I remember you asking about this exact point pages ago. That is a shameful post by Joe King.

"If the law says it's OK, then I'm all for it!"

Sick.
if they don't like a particular law , they will vote it down.


Umm, you believe that? Are you joking or serious?


it always comes down to who the ultimate authority is

Half of us here believe it is God.

Another half believe it is "we the people"

As "we the people" through evolution came out of nothing, then nothing is sacred, and that includes children

we are seeing how one by one the old laws degrade into nothingness

they say you become what you worship.

nation de-evolulves into nothing before our eyes

the only thing that is in the way is the Church

“Do as thy will shall be the whole of the law” is the slogan of godless World.

peace symbol of the world is the death rune. Nero’s broken cross. World without Christians they made “peace sign” for themselves.

As long as we are here we will be irritation to the them. Remove God and what can stop them from doing whatever they want? Suddenly the very concept of evil does not exist anymore.

[Neuro]

I guess according to gods law, one should honor ones father and mother, so obviously this particular relationship is out of the question, assuming there were no man made laws, would it be ok then if a let's say ten year old girls parents gave away their daughter in marriage? Or does the bible give some guidance, as to when it is appropriate to marry away a daughter, as far as I understand it Maria was around 13 or so when she was given away in marriage to much older Joseph... Was that appropriate? Or was Joseph a pedophile?

[RJB]

I guess according to gods law, one should honor ones father and mother, so obviously this particular relationship is out of the question, assuming there were no man made laws, would it be ok then if a let's say ten year old girls parents gave away their daughter in marriage? Or does the bible give some guidance, as to when it is appropriate to marry away a daughter, as far as I understand it Maria was around 13 or so when she was given away in marriage to much older Joseph... Was that appropriate? Or was Joseph a pedophile?
We don't know the age of Joseph, we're guessing at the age of Mary. Let's compare the 2.

In one corner, an older man approaches the parents and the girl (in the open) with a proposal to protect and care for the girl for the rest of her life in the bounds of matrimony.

In the other corner an older man sneaks around in secrecy behind the parent's back to have sex with a girl who he may knock up, give a social disease, and leave.