Pizzagate because you shouldn't have sex with your students
Says who, since when and how so? Perhaps it depends on who is 'you' and who are the 'students'? Remember, Pizzagare is about some specific, abhorrent crime committed agains children. It concerns specific events, recurrent themes, MO and clearly identified actors.
Vulnerable and fragile as they might be, 17 and 18 year old boys are not children by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to discuss the ethical implications of students/teachers sexual relationship bring this nonsense elsewhere. Don't dilute the research!
@Millennial_Falcon
,
@Vindicator
how much further OT could one go? Mods, please delete.
This is not a case of judges normalizing pedophilia. It's a court decision about decriminalizing the choice of fully grown-up, normally developed, perfectly scentient and mentality capable 17 and 18 year old teenagers to have sex with a teacher. All within the existing legal age of consent framework.
According to the law that Alabama judged overturned, a female teacher sleeping with her 18 yo male student would have been punishable with up to 20 years behind bars! Come on!
The law was declared unconstitutional and I completely agree with the Al judge's decision. More importantly, since the age of consent in Alabama is 16, this has nothing to do with pedophilia, let alone with Pizzagate. It's OT. OT posts are either a deliberate diversion or a half-thought through distraction. Either way, every time someone posts OT bunk, it changes the subject, dilutes the research and drains community resources.
Judge Glenn Thompson dismissed charges against 44-year-old former high school teacher Carrie Witt and 27-year-old former aide David Solomon, who worked at different schools. Witt was accused of sleeping with an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, and Solomon faced charges of having sex with a 17-year-old, according to local news reports.
Not sure what's going on here. The normalization and changing of laws has always been part of pizzagate. Teachers having sex with students never had to be defended before, but now it's no longer taboo because of a law ensuring "slaves" obtained the same rights as everyone else?
If you really believe a 44-year-old teacher having sex with a 17-year-old student is okay, guess what? You may already be normalized. Nothing anyone can do about that, BUT the point is that a precedent has been set. A judge knocked down the criminal penalty for a teacher having sex with a student. So today, it was a 17-yr-old. Maybe next week, it'll be a 16-year-old. How about a 15-yr-old? Remember that Bill Maher said that the only thing wrong with Mary Kay La Tourneau having sex with a student was that there weren't videos of it.
This is tantamount to the push for children to be autonomous in deciding their sexuality at four. Because if they can legally push for a child to decide his sexuality, they can then push for them to decide whether or not they can have sex.
I'm surprised
@Millenial_Falcon
and/or
@Vindicator
took it down. Could it be reposted under proof of "normalization" and allowing it to become mainstream for teachers and children to have sexual relationships? That seems a huge story and pizzagate related, no?
"Children" is not a legal term. The minimum age of consent in most states is 16. Any consensual sexual relationship with a person 16 and above is therefore legal. "Normal" means different things to different people. So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story. Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly. We live in a society where perversion, vice and depravity have become already the "norm". Start by outlawing pervasive pornography, militant f@gotry, hysterical feminism, sodomy, gay marriage, conveyor-belt abortions of convenience, satanism, sexualisation of kids and mixed restrooms. Then we'll see who a hormone ridden 18-year old teenager can and can't have sex with.
EDIT: Oh. And Pizzagate btw is about something entirely different. It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
This. This is what I mean. Why would
@Vindicator
or
@Millenial_Falcon
pay attention to anything you have to say and delete a post when you are completely wrong about everything and see things through a very jaded, very narrow perspective?
"Children" is not a legal term.
"MINOR" is a legal term, definition, and class of human being. While the laws of consent vary, the current law for MINOR is (from Wikipedia):
In the United States as of 1995, minor is generally legally defined as a person under the age of 18. Although in the context of alcohol or gambling laws, people under the age of 21 may also sometimes be referred to as "minors".
From the Free Legal Dictionary:
An infant or person who is under the age of legal competence. A term derived from the Civil Law, which described a person under a certain age as less than so many years. In most states, a person is no longer a minor after reaching the age of 18 (though state laws might still prohibit certain acts until reaching a greater age; e.g., purchase of liquor). Also, less; of less consideration; lower; a person of inferior condition.
This resolves the need for me to follow this suggestion:
So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story.
This is clearly a misunderstanding and corruption of the current statutes. The age of consent varies from state-to-state, but even where age is say 17, there may still be prosecution when a grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants. This means that in two seventeen-year-olds usually can, and do, engage in sexual relations, but that if one of the seventeen-year-olds were blackmailing or bullying the other party into performing sexual acts, that it is not consensual as undue pressure and coercion has been applied.
In the case of an adult (also a legal term) engaging in sex with a minor (yes, it is a legal term so maybe you can petition whoever the hell you want to ... maybe Pedosta?), the relationship may become suspect in thinking external factors were applied to said minor in enticing that "child" to engage in a sexual act. A teacher/student would fit the model of one such relationship where coercion could be applied. An employer/employee could be another. After all, the targeted victim shows up for work every day and is ripe for being taken advantage of. A coach/athlete would be another situation.
Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly.
Another complete misinterpretation and marginalization/normalization of what went on here. It's not an "ethical" issue, it was a criminal one. From the article:
A teacher having sex with a student is a Class B felony under current state law, carrying a sentence of up to 20 years and fines of up to $30,000.
It was a felony! A F-E-L-O-N-Y, not an ethical issue or whether you should or should not allow a person nobody likes that much into the soiree you're holding at the local eatery. So now that barrier is gone. It was there to protect students from lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students. The teachers are there to teach and the students should be there to learn. The classroom is not a singles bar and teachers should not be scouting for the victim. Which means it's this:
It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
If we take away that barrier, and it was taken away, it means the destruction of childhood through the uninhibited predation of horny, overage, rapist/molestors who hide the element of grooming and coercion under the argument that the relationship is "consensual" when it is anything but. Parents are not sending their sons and daughters to school to be raped by teachers. And the fact that the judge used the case of this "seventeen-year-old" to open the floodgate is exactly what was needed to get people like you chiming in and defending this.
This is about precedent. This is about the abolishment of a law protecting childhood and innocence, something that is within the realm and boundaries of pizzagate.
Self-righteous, bigoted members of the pizzagate community have the right to espouse their ridiculous, rigid opinions, but for a post central to a lot of the issues pizzagate is dealing to be taken down because of one such member flagging moderators is outrageous.
This community is about sharing information, not controlling and defining what someone should or should not post because it conflicts or is a variable on the central theme. This post was and is very pertinent to the subject we're dealing with and I'm sorry you're so entrenched in projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused.
I like your fervor and your research work on voat in general. But as many on this sub, you seem to have a hard time keeping an objective perspective.
I know how that feels. Suddenly everything around you looks connected by million invisible threads to Pizzagate. It's called availability heuristic and confirmation bias.
It's a problem for research and clear thinking, since it takes away focus, inserts randomness and results invariably in credibility loss.
All that Alabama judge said was that a law criminalizing consensual teacher-student sex is unconstitutional. The US Constitution being the ultimate measure of what's legal or not.
You know virtually nothing about the case, except from what you've read in some internet article. But you are quick to assume that the teachers involved could be only
lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students
There could be no presumption that the sexual relationship between two consenting adults implies necessarily
grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants
in the same way not all sex is presumed rape. Except of course, by deranged American feminists.
17 and 18 year old can also be lecherous, sneaky and manipulative and as capable of "power" abuse as their teachers.
How do you know that it was not the male student who seduced a lonely, aging, depressive female teacher who badly needed a man's attention and love?
How do you know that there wasn't some deep intellectual and emotional bond between the two of them long before they had sex? Were you there?
Yet you are willing to put some poor 44-year old woman behind bars for 20 years, on the assumption that she was the "predator" and her student was the "victim"?
You little bleeding-hart puritan and sanctimonious, self-righteous monster...
Have you been completely brainwashed by binary Hollywood propaganda and cliches ?
Do you understand how far removed your petty moral outrage is from the plight of 4 & 5 year olds being trafficked, abused, tortured and occasionally, killed by the psychopaths who govern us?
Of course it is off-topic...
projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused
Wow, you are completely fucked up! You're one of the predators we're fighting against.
Well, now that I know, I won't waste anymore time talking to you. If there's a shred of hope, I keep at it, but you lost your moral compass in that swamp.
They may not be children to you, but they are to someone. You do not get to decide when someones child gets tricked into sex. This may have been going on for a while. It is called grooming.
We are all someone's children.
There are only two valid questions, at least, for the purposes of this sub:
1. Was there any age of consent statute violated?
2. Is this story Pizzagate related?
The answer to both questions is NO.
And I have to downvote you for the first time.
Do you know what Pizzagate is about? Something much more sinister than a female teacher sleeping with her 18 and 17 year old male students. Unethical as it might be, it pales in comparison with the mass-scale child trafficking and sex-crimes committed against kids afflicting the West right now. At least 18 and 17-year male students are capable of consent. At best, it's a gray territory and we have limited time and resources. Have some sense of perspective and priority. Don't waste everyone's time with anecdotal nonsense.
It's that kind of BS that normalizes pedophilia.
If everything is pedophilia, then nothing is pedophilia.
what is wrong with you? a student/teacher sexual relationship implies that the student is coerced into sex for a good grade. Have you never gone to school? kids are aware of this and teachers should NEVER use grades as bargaining chip for sex.
So very true. Also it erodes their respect and trust for those that are responsible for their care, just like LE Firemen and their Drs. They are taught to have faith that they are in good hands. Our Children deserve better than that.
No, it doesn't. An 18 yo student/teacher sexual relationship can take place for all kind of reasons.
Whether it's ethical or not it is a different story. As long as it's not illegal it's none of your business.
In most US States the age of sexual consent is 16. You have to draw the line somewhere. 17 and 18 year old can decide for themselves.
3 and 4 yo can't.
so long as that teacher is responsible for grading the student, that is an unbalanced power play relationship, there is no other way to interpret it. And it is probably against school policy which would make it an illegal violation of contract.
Violation of contract is not a sex crime. Do you understand the difference between illegal and unethical? This is a Pizzagate sub. We are discussing specific crimes, specific events, MO and clearly identified actors. Don't transform this into an ethics discussion forum. It's OT at best and hindering and diluting the investigation with BS issues at worst.
Did you read the article? How far is 17 and 18 year old? In most US States the age of consent is 16.
I would say draw the line there, arbitrary as it might be.
And by the way, this is a Pizzagate sub, addressing specific crimes, events and actors, not some general age-of-consent discussion church board.
Alabama judge rules teachers can have sex with their students | National Post
'An Alabama judge ruled Friday that a state law banning teachers from having sex with students was unconstitutional, dismissing charges against two school employees accused of doing just that. '
'Witt was accused of sleeping with an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, and Solomon faced charges of having sex with a 17-year-old, according to local news reports. '
'A teacher having sex with a student is a Class B felony under current state law, carrying a sentence of up to 20 years and fines of up to $30,000. '
'Judge Glenn Thompson dismissed charges against 44-year-old former high school teacher Carrie Witt and 27-year-old former aide David Solomon, who worked at different schools. '
'Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson told the outlet that the Alabama attorney general’s office will appeal the decision, which is typical when a state law is deemed unconstitutional. '
This was deleted and you and I were down voated by Armed Exorcist He summoned MF and Vind. to remove. It is bad enough trying to fight this fight without our own members holding us back. I am sorry I did not agree for I believe that the age of consent should not be 16.
Hey, don't get upset. There's a battle going on within some. Try posting this under the push to "normalize" sex between student and teacher because that's what this is. Then talk about how it sets the precedent for a teacher to have sex with a younger child, or groom a 7-yr-old to have sex in a few years.
Absolutely, don't get upset. We're just working out what works in the subverse pizzagate. It's not personal.
I know, it is so infuriating sometimes. I believe that some on here don't realize that 16 is what it is in France where Polanski resides, and we know why. We saw what happened between Macron and his wife. First it is 16 then it goes down to 12 and maybe as you say 7. If we do not fight to raise the age, it will never stop. Thanks :)
▼ ArmedExorcist
Again, how is this Pizzagate related?
Says who, since when and how so? Perhaps it depends on who is 'you' and who are the 'students'? Remember, Pizzagare is about some specific, abhorrent crime committed agains children. It concerns specific events, recurrent themes, MO and clearly identified actors. Vulnerable and fragile as they might be, 17 and 18 year old boys are not children by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to discuss the ethical implications of students/teachers sexual relationship bring this nonsense elsewhere. Don't dilute the research! @Millennial_Falcon , @Vindicator how much further OT could one go? Mods, please delete.
▼ hojuruku
judges normalizing pedophilia is mostly what i cover. I feel for this guy having his stuff censored.
▼ ArmedExorcist
This is not a case of judges normalizing pedophilia. It's a court decision about decriminalizing the choice of fully grown-up, normally developed, perfectly scentient and mentality capable 17 and 18 year old teenagers to have sex with a teacher. All within the existing legal age of consent framework. According to the law that Alabama judged overturned, a female teacher sleeping with her 18 yo male student would have been punishable with up to 20 years behind bars! Come on! The law was declared unconstitutional and I completely agree with the Al judge's decision. More importantly, since the age of consent in Alabama is 16, this has nothing to do with pedophilia, let alone with Pizzagate. It's OT. OT posts are either a deliberate diversion or a half-thought through distraction. Either way, every time someone posts OT bunk, it changes the subject, dilutes the research and drains community resources.
▼ quantokitty
Not sure what's going on here. The normalization and changing of laws has always been part of pizzagate. Teachers having sex with students never had to be defended before, but now it's no longer taboo because of a law ensuring "slaves" obtained the same rights as everyone else?
If you really believe a 44-year-old teacher having sex with a 17-year-old student is okay, guess what? You may already be normalized. Nothing anyone can do about that, BUT the point is that a precedent has been set. A judge knocked down the criminal penalty for a teacher having sex with a student. So today, it was a 17-yr-old. Maybe next week, it'll be a 16-year-old. How about a 15-yr-old? Remember that Bill Maher said that the only thing wrong with Mary Kay La Tourneau having sex with a student was that there weren't videos of it.
This is tantamount to the push for children to be autonomous in deciding their sexuality at four. Because if they can legally push for a child to decide his sexuality, they can then push for them to decide whether or not they can have sex.
I'm surprised @Millenial_Falcon and/or @Vindicator took it down. Could it be reposted under proof of "normalization" and allowing it to become mainstream for teachers and children to have sexual relationships? That seems a huge story and pizzagate related, no?
▼ ArmedExorcist
"Children" is not a legal term. The minimum age of consent in most states is 16. Any consensual sexual relationship with a person 16 and above is therefore legal. "Normal" means different things to different people. So what you consider "normal" is beyond the point. If you disagree with the statutory age of consent, feel free to petition your state representatives, start a campaign to change the law, talk to your kids, friends, siblings, move to another state/country etc. As of now, it's perfectly legal for two willing individuals age > 16 + to engage in a sexual intercourse. End of story. Is there an ethical issue for a teacher sleeping with his/her student age > 16+? Possibly. We live in a society where perversion, vice and depravity have become already the "norm". Start by outlawing pervasive pornography, militant f@gotry, hysterical feminism, sodomy, gay marriage, conveyor-belt abortions of convenience, satanism, sexualisation of kids and mixed restrooms. Then we'll see who a hormone ridden 18-year old teenager can and can't have sex with. EDIT: Oh. And Pizzagate btw is about something entirely different. It's about destruction of humanity through destruction of childhood and innocence. If you try to bring into it 18 year olds, you are part of the problem.
▼ quantokitty
This. This is what I mean. Why would @Vindicator or @Millenial_Falcon pay attention to anything you have to say and delete a post when you are completely wrong about everything and see things through a very jaded, very narrow perspective?
"MINOR" is a legal term, definition, and class of human being. While the laws of consent vary, the current law for MINOR is (from Wikipedia):
From the Free Legal Dictionary:
This resolves the need for me to follow this suggestion:
This is clearly a misunderstanding and corruption of the current statutes. The age of consent varies from state-to-state, but even where age is say 17, there may still be prosecution when a grooming, coercive, or malicious intent of taking away choice by the abundance of power in one of the participants. This means that in two seventeen-year-olds usually can, and do, engage in sexual relations, but that if one of the seventeen-year-olds were blackmailing or bullying the other party into performing sexual acts, that it is not consensual as undue pressure and coercion has been applied.
In the case of an adult (also a legal term) engaging in sex with a minor (yes, it is a legal term so maybe you can petition whoever the hell you want to ... maybe Pedosta?), the relationship may become suspect in thinking external factors were applied to said minor in enticing that "child" to engage in a sexual act. A teacher/student would fit the model of one such relationship where coercion could be applied. An employer/employee could be another. After all, the targeted victim shows up for work every day and is ripe for being taken advantage of. A coach/athlete would be another situation.
Another complete misinterpretation and marginalization/normalization of what went on here. It's not an "ethical" issue, it was a criminal one. From the article:
It was a felony! A F-E-L-O-N-Y, not an ethical issue or whether you should or should not allow a person nobody likes that much into the soiree you're holding at the local eatery. So now that barrier is gone. It was there to protect students from lecherous, skanky, predatory perv/pedophiles who take advantage of their students. The teachers are there to teach and the students should be there to learn. The classroom is not a singles bar and teachers should not be scouting for the victim. Which means it's this:
If we take away that barrier, and it was taken away, it means the destruction of childhood through the uninhibited predation of horny, overage, rapist/molestors who hide the element of grooming and coercion under the argument that the relationship is "consensual" when it is anything but. Parents are not sending their sons and daughters to school to be raped by teachers. And the fact that the judge used the case of this "seventeen-year-old" to open the floodgate is exactly what was needed to get people like you chiming in and defending this.
This is about precedent. This is about the abolishment of a law protecting childhood and innocence, something that is within the realm and boundaries of pizzagate.
Self-righteous, bigoted members of the pizzagate community have the right to espouse their ridiculous, rigid opinions, but for a post central to a lot of the issues pizzagate is dealing to be taken down because of one such member flagging moderators is outrageous.
This community is about sharing information, not controlling and defining what someone should or should not post because it conflicts or is a variable on the central theme. This post was and is very pertinent to the subject we're dealing with and I'm sorry you're so entrenched in projecting your own fantasies onto "minors" that have been abused.
▼ ArmedExorcist
I like your fervor and your research work on voat in general. But as many on this sub, you seem to have a hard time keeping an objective perspective.
I know how that feels. Suddenly everything around you looks connected by million invisible threads to Pizzagate. It's called availability heuristic and confirmation bias. It's a problem for research and clear thinking, since it takes away focus, inserts randomness and results invariably in credibility loss. All that Alabama judge said was that a law criminalizing consensual teacher-student sex is unconstitutional. The US Constitution being the ultimate measure of what's legal or not.
You know virtually nothing about the case, except from what you've read in some internet article. But you are quick to assume that the teachers involved could be only
There could be no presumption that the sexual relationship between two consenting adults implies necessarily
in the same way not all sex is presumed rape. Except of course, by deranged American feminists.
17 and 18 year old can also be lecherous, sneaky and manipulative and as capable of "power" abuse as their teachers.
How do you know that it was not the male student who seduced a lonely, aging, depressive female teacher who badly needed a man's attention and love? How do you know that there wasn't some deep intellectual and emotional bond between the two of them long before they had sex? Were you there?
Yet you are willing to put some poor 44-year old woman behind bars for 20 years, on the assumption that she was the "predator" and her student was the "victim"?
You little bleeding-hart puritan and sanctimonious, self-righteous monster... Have you been completely brainwashed by binary Hollywood propaganda and cliches ?
Do you understand how far removed your petty moral outrage is from the plight of 4 & 5 year olds being trafficked, abused, tortured and occasionally, killed by the psychopaths who govern us?
Of course it is off-topic...
... and I'm afraid so are you.
▼ quantokitty
Wow, you are completely fucked up! You're one of the predators we're fighting against.
Well, now that I know, I won't waste anymore time talking to you. If there's a shred of hope, I keep at it, but you lost your moral compass in that swamp.
▼ ArmedExorcist
Just curious, what makes me a "predator"?
▼ carmencita
They may not be children to you, but they are to someone. You do not get to decide when someones child gets tricked into sex. This may have been going on for a while. It is called grooming.
▼ ArmedExorcist
We are all someone's children. There are only two valid questions, at least, for the purposes of this sub: 1. Was there any age of consent statute violated?
2. Is this story Pizzagate related? The answer to both questions is NO. And I have to downvote you for the first time.
▼ carmencita
Do what you must. You won't be the first one. The age of consent should not be 16. That is my opinion, if you do not agree, we must agree to disagree.
▼ new4now
Like cockroaches...We are infested
These Judges are placed. which mean they are dirty birds
▼ carmencita
In some states you can vote them out. That is the best way. To Fire Them.
▼ ArmedExorcist
Do you know what Pizzagate is about? Something much more sinister than a female teacher sleeping with her 18 and 17 year old male students. Unethical as it might be, it pales in comparison with the mass-scale child trafficking and sex-crimes committed against kids afflicting the West right now. At least 18 and 17-year male students are capable of consent. At best, it's a gray territory and we have limited time and resources. Have some sense of perspective and priority. Don't waste everyone's time with anecdotal nonsense. It's that kind of BS that normalizes pedophilia. If everything is pedophilia, then nothing is pedophilia.
▼ 2impendingdoom
what is wrong with you? a student/teacher sexual relationship implies that the student is coerced into sex for a good grade. Have you never gone to school? kids are aware of this and teachers should NEVER use grades as bargaining chip for sex.
▼ carmencita
So very true. Also it erodes their respect and trust for those that are responsible for their care, just like LE Firemen and their Drs. They are taught to have faith that they are in good hands. Our Children deserve better than that.
▼ ArmedExorcist
No, it doesn't. An 18 yo student/teacher sexual relationship can take place for all kind of reasons. Whether it's ethical or not it is a different story. As long as it's not illegal it's none of your business. In most US States the age of sexual consent is 16. You have to draw the line somewhere. 17 and 18 year old can decide for themselves. 3 and 4 yo can't.
▼ 2impendingdoom
so long as that teacher is responsible for grading the student, that is an unbalanced power play relationship, there is no other way to interpret it. And it is probably against school policy which would make it an illegal violation of contract.
▼ ArmedExorcist
Violation of contract is not a sex crime. Do you understand the difference between illegal and unethical? This is a Pizzagate sub. We are discussing specific crimes, specific events, MO and clearly identified actors. Don't transform this into an ethics discussion forum. It's OT at best and hindering and diluting the investigation with BS issues at worst.
▼ 2impendingdoom
fuck off armyseer
▼ Madwack
If this Judge will go this far, how far will he go?
▼ ArmedExorcist
Did you read the article? How far is 17 and 18 year old? In most US States the age of consent is 16. I would say draw the line there, arbitrary as it might be. And by the way, this is a Pizzagate sub, addressing specific crimes, events and actors, not some general age-of-consent discussion church board.
▼ Madwack
Look as a teacher you have authority of your student, there should be no conflicts in this type of relationship. just teaching of the subject at hand.
▼ derram
https://archive.is/O19VJ | :
'An Alabama judge ruled Friday that a state law banning teachers from having sex with students was unconstitutional, dismissing charges against two school employees accused of doing just that. '
'Witt was accused of sleeping with an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, and Solomon faced charges of having sex with a 17-year-old, according to local news reports. '
'A teacher having sex with a student is a Class B felony under current state law, carrying a sentence of up to 20 years and fines of up to $30,000. '
'Judge Glenn Thompson dismissed charges against 44-year-old former high school teacher Carrie Witt and 27-year-old former aide David Solomon, who worked at different schools. '
'Morgan County District Attorney Scott Anderson told the outlet that the Alabama attorney general’s office will appeal the decision, which is typical when a state law is deemed unconstitutional. '
This has been an automated message.
▼ quantokitty
Oh, dear God!
The only good thing that comes out of these normalization/legalization stories is that it identifies who's on board with The Cannibal Elite.
The out themselves. We just need to pay attention.
▼ carmencita
This was deleted and you and I were down voated by Armed Exorcist He summoned MF and Vind. to remove. It is bad enough trying to fight this fight without our own members holding us back. I am sorry I did not agree for I believe that the age of consent should not be 16.
▼ quantokitty
Hey, don't get upset. There's a battle going on within some. Try posting this under the push to "normalize" sex between student and teacher because that's what this is. Then talk about how it sets the precedent for a teacher to have sex with a younger child, or groom a 7-yr-old to have sex in a few years.
Absolutely, don't get upset. We're just working out what works in the subverse pizzagate. It's not personal.
▼ carmencita
I know, it is so infuriating sometimes. I believe that some on here don't realize that 16 is what it is in France where Polanski resides, and we know why. We saw what happened between Macron and his wife. First it is 16 then it goes down to 12 and maybe as you say 7. If we do not fight to raise the age, it will never stop. Thanks :)