Pedophile Antifa Leader Found Guilty Of Raping Underage Girl

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Okay, you disagreed about Juries knowing previous convictions. I replied in similar fashion about the failings in Canada.
Touche.

Yes, I disagree with it on principle, not because your country does it.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Well, according to www.oregonlive.com... he was initially convicted as a 14 year old of molesting a 9/10 year old little boy.

He's clearly a serial sex abuser and should be removed from the population of free people until such time as his release is straight from a cell to a grave.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree, the guy sounds like a danger to the public. Locking away seems the right move to me.

Disgusting pedophile criminal Micah Rhodes is a coward. Suddenly his mask makes sense

a reply to: Isurrender73

Grooming over the internet is not the same as a consensual relationship between a 16 and 23 year old. But they will recieve the same judgment.

And what kind of loser do you have to be, trying to have sex with a 16 year old at 23? Please, explain that to me.

a reply to: JAY1980

Next some of you will be saying 12 is an appropriate age


What I see here is a bunch of people using their progressive ideology to justify something inherently wrong. Not religiously wrong but universally wrong.


It makes me respectful of young humans and the natural order of things. That's all.

Ok then. Here is an argument based upon your own statements.

You say that some will justify sex at twelve. While you then denounce ''progressive ideology'' to justify something inherently wrong,,, you then say you are respectful of young humans and '' the natural order of things''.

What could be more ''respectful of the ''natural order of things'' than NATURE ITSELF?
What do we know about what NATURE has to say about procreation. It tells us simply that the human body undergoes a change between childhood and adulthood.

And generally, when does this happen? At 5? At 20? Nope. Nature turns humans into procreative beings around the 11th or 12th or 13th year after birth.

So if nature prepares us for procreation, sex, around those early teen years, just what exactly is, as you say, ''inherently wrong''?

Now don't get me wrong here. I am one totally in favor of protecting innocent youth from predatory adults as I understand you to be also. Protective of young people. However that protection can be ridicules at times. Sex between a 20 year old and a 17 year old that is consensual should not automatically be deemed sexual abuse. Between a 20 year old and a 10 year old should be. From my point of view even a 20 year old and a 12 or 15 year old should be considered in this light. But not 20 and 17 automatically.

I think my objection to most of this OP can be summed up by this statement in reply to the same post I am replying to.

Well stated, JAY.
Pedophilia incrementalism.
Progressively pushing that age limit lower and lower.

This thread and many of the posts make a mockery of those protections that both you and I agree are important in protecting innocent young people because rather than progressively pushing that age of consent lower and lower, what is being done in this thread is to push the description of pedophilia higher and higher.

a reply to: watchitburn
Sorry, but pedos are on both sides of the aisle.

You do remember the Catholic church, yes? All those priestly pedos? Not really liberal, are they?

I get what you're going for in your OP, but the BS of linking pedos with liberals as the majority of child abusers is ridiculous.

If you are actually unaware of the history behind this question in the US ... prepare yourself.

While the general age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7. The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century. By 1920 ages of consent generally rose to 16–18 and small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The final state to raise its age of general consent was Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.

Wiki - Ages of Consent in the United States

I knew the ages for marriage used to be lower, but I had no idea that SEVEN year old babies were once considered "legal."

I'm just generally repulsed, horrified and disgusted at this fact.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

The Oregon Youth Authority began supervising Rhodes when he was 14, for sexual abuse and sodomy, authorities said. According to court records, Rhodes was 13 or 14 years old in 2007 when he sexually abused a boy who was 9 or 10 years old.

Portland activist Micah Rhodes pleads guilty in second sex abuse case

Activism and social justice makes a good disguise for those who hold deep-seeded evils.

Kinda how conservatism and religion do... or have ya forgotten about all those priests that diddled little boys?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Isurrender73

Grooming over the internet is not the same as a consensual relationship between a 16 and 23 year old. But they will recieve the same judgment.

And what kind of loser do you have to be, trying to have sex with a 16 year old at 23? Please, explain that to me.

Each case on it's own merit. I had a 22 year old girlfriend for some months when I was 16, she was a better pool player than me as well when we were at the pub. She used to have to buy me a plate of fries so I could legally drink at the bar being under 18, but our sex was legal because I was 16. She wasn't a loser, I remember her with fondness.

My son was in a relationship with a 21 year old when he was 16, he met her in a bar and lied to her about his age.
This 'under 18 is always bad' thing is ridiculous, even in the OP it states it was consensual...and in Britain it would have been legal.

I posted previously that I was banging my mates hot mother when I was 14, that wasn't abuse, I loved every minute of it, and had she been found out there's no way I would have testified against her.
Every case should be taken on its own merit, but a sex criminal conviction when it was consensual is ridiculous. Police here would rarely refer one to the Crown Prosecution Service if they knew it was consensual and there is not a huge gap between ages, even if one of them was 14.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Honestly....is paedophilia a left thing now? Messing with a kid is the worst crime a human can commit....full stop. Touch my grandkids and see what happens. I'm not gonna stop and ask your political stance...I'm gonna ask who you God is cuz your gonna see it soon.

I guess it is if you dont count priests

a reply to: dragonridr

At least it was consensual in the OP, and would have been legal as well if it had been in the UK...priests on the other hand actually raped young boys and in the standard sense of rape, not the silly statutory definition.

Oh and people in this thread are badly belittling the term Paedophilia. A Paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, not young people who are capable of producing children. 16 year olds can legally have sex with over 18's in the UK, same sex or heterosexual. It is not Paedophilia, although as I've said previously I won't go younger than early 20's these days...just adding that so no prick accuses me of wanting sex with a 16 year old.

EDIT
There is one nightclub I won't go drinking in now because it is known as the 'kids' club. All the underage youngsters go there even as young as 15 with their fake ID bought off the internet. The cops turn a blind eye and one told me once they prefer the youngsters to be in a safe controlled environment than being vulnerable drinking in the park or a secluded beach. Plenty of 15/16/17 year old gold-diggers in that club, they exploit the stupid older men for drinks, coc aine, and money.
My own successful early twenties son was drinking there aged 15 with his fake ID, he loved pulling old cougars, said the sex was much better than girls his own age.
US 'kids' seem to be much less streetwise than British young people.

a reply to: watchitburn

That's racist, let him go!

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Pretty sure you're the same guy who made a post and bragged about your 15yo son having sex with older women using a fake id.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep that was me, and I didn't brag, I laughed about it, good luck to him, he loved it.
What's your problem with that?
I was banging my mates hot mother when I was 14, I loved that as well.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What exactly was your point?

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Most states in the US, the age of consent is 16, some states are 17 and some 18.

Edit to add link:
Wiki

So most western states and Texas are 18, east cost is mostly 16.

How old were those claiming Judge Moore was asking them out and people were outraged? I see a partisan view so slanted from the left causing the OP to wash with a too broad brush as they do in the MSM. The Trump supporters are not Nazi for wanting a fair chance against an invasion of undocumented Democrats from south of TX and beyond but the media keep letting people say it on their productions and in print.

ANTIFA is supposed to be against oppression, on paper. Maybe the OP is feeling that lie when typing this thread?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

The Oregon Youth Authority began supervising Rhodes when he was 14, for sexual abuse and sodomy, authorities said. According to court records, Rhodes was 13 or 14 years old in 2007 when he sexually abused a boy who was 9 or 10 years old.

Portland activist Micah Rhodes pleads guilty in second sex abuse case

Activism and social justice makes a good disguise for those who hold deep-seeded evils.

So he started on a 9 year old when he was 13. Historically interested it seems. Yikes and yuk!

20-17 is reasonable for consent IMO.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I support the denying of juries to have knowledge of previous convictions.
I stole cars in my mid-teens, one time I was innocent in court but they would certainly have convicted me if they knew my previous. Juries here solely look at the facts of the specific claims, not previous.

All Judges and Juries judge on the facts of the current case.

Historical practice tends to count but I would not seek to convict on consensual sex with a 17 yr old while 20. Why did they keep going in the case this day and time unless there is more?
From the article I found this;
"That’s scheduled for June, about two weeks after he's sentenced in Washington County for one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a 17-year-old girl in 2014."

It is abuse of the girl and a conviction too.