No one said you did
Again, it's not about pornographic, it's about sexually explicit TikToks. Not that you care about the truth as you deflect.
You okay with her dressing up the child in sexually provocative clothes too?
You said "LMAO Yea I can see it now as you two post sexually explicit TikToks." together. You seem to be okay with it. That's sick.I can just imagine the sick double dating now." So you threw out an accusation based on nothing and then pulled it back. Okay. Let's be clear. I don't even have a TikTok account. And I no more approve of anybody posting anything on TikTok than you approve of a man giving a woman
he knows has been drinking a ride home....to
his house and then having sex with her. Or...maybe you do approve of that. Maybe you've done that. I don't know. You seem to be adamant that laws which punish said behavior when it turns out the drunk woman was actually under age are "tyrannical" and "akin to Jim Crow" even though (I think) you are against such behavior? Or maybe you support such behavior? I mean, if you REALLY think that my insistence that these "sexually explicit TikTok videos" (which haven't even been defined) are a reason for the law to terminate parental rights means somehow that I'm all for posting sexually explicit TikTok videos, then by your own TWISTED logic, you support having sex with drunk women you don't know that are much, much older than you. Here's something about drunk people. Even when the "consent", sometimes they don't have a freaking clue about what they are doing. I've never been drunk. But I've been around a lot of drunk people as an Uber/Lyft driver. I once got a phone number from a really hot lady who liked how nice and polite I was. I sent her a text the next day. She didn't respond. I know why. She probably didn't even remember giving me her number. Drunk sex is dangerous. You might catch HIV. You might get a woman you don't particularly like pregnant. You might find yourself afoul of statutory rape laws. It's like drunk driving. You didn't
mean to hit that pedestrian but...
Again because it's not about the dad, it's about the repulsive behavior of the mother. Behavior which you don't care about. It's sick
No it's not. It's about a politically connected father who manipulated the system. See:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-forced-give-up-daughter-rapist-pay-child-support
"He's well-connected," Abelseth said. "He's threatened me multiple times, saying he has connections in the justice system, so I better be careful, and he can take her away anytime he wants to. I didn't believe him until it happened."
Earlier this year, Louisiana Judge Jeffrey Cashe granted Barnes full custody after the father alleged that Abelseth gave the teen a cellphone, which she denied. The judge, of the 21st Judicial District Court in Louisiana, also ordered Abelseth to pay her alleged abuser child support.
It's not uncommon in today's world for men or women to get married 3 times in 6 years. I did a divorce for one man who called me back a couple of years later because he needed to divorced from his next wife. I passed on that one. I don't condone that behavior. But unlike you I don't think he should have lost his kids over that. Or maybe you don't think that. You have no moral consistency. You think laws that punish men who through their immoral acts accidentally commit statutory rape are "tyrannical" and "equal to Jim Crow." But then you're okay with a court taking away a mother's parental rights based on her having three husbands in six years, allowing men to sleep over, and wanting her daughter to have a relationship with a felon (the biological dad may soon become a felon too). The funny thing is, the court did NOT terminate parental rights for any of that behavior. It wasn't until the alleged cell phone became an issue along with the TikTok videos and making out with the 17 year old that the mom lost custody. I've pointed that out to you but you ignored that fact.
make something else up because you don't have a leg to stand on.
I haven't made anything up. You made up the accusation that I'm for posting sexually explicit TikTok videos. You made up the accusation that I support the mom's behavior just because I don't think there should be legal consequences to it. You support legal consequences for the mom's behavior. You think the legal consequences for the dad's behavior is "tyrannical" and comparable to "Jim Crow." Those are your words. Own them.
It wasn't necessarily public pressure although that did bring attention to it. It was about how it wasn't brought up in the first place.
R Kelly is in prison over allegations that weren't brought up in the first place despite there being physical evidence that they were true. Should he be released, yes or no? Here's the details of his convictions.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/r-kelly-convicted-all-counts-federal-jury-brooklyn
Note that one count was for him filming pornographic videos of underage women on VHS cameras. You know how long ago it was that VHS was popular? The years listed range from 2009 to 2018. He wasn't convicted until 2021. One of his victims initially denied it was her on the video tape even though her family said it was her. I don't know if she still maintains that our not. He repeated the behavior enough times so that there were plenty of victims. I knew about his crimes back when they first happened. But he didn't get convicted until "Surviving R. Kelly" came out and put public pressure on the issue.
And what statute of limitations do you think there should be for rape statutory or otherwise? 24 hours? A week? A month? A year? What about when the alleged rapist is politically connected and can manipulate the system as in this case? What about Jeffrey Epstein? His convictions included convictions for rape that happened years before. Sorry but the "It can't be rape if you don't bring it up immediately" defense just doesn't fly, especially in this case where the basic facts are already admitted. And in this case the mom DID bring it up years ago! An investigation was started in 2015. There aren't any facts in dispute to get a conviction. And I don't buy the argument, if you're going to make it, that Louisiana is just some pseudo libertarian state that doesn't want to prosecute its own statutory rape laws, especially considering the fact that the judge, before he changed his mind, was going to take the un-libertarian position that a cell phone used to post whatever it is that TikTok allows you to post (which isn't porn), and to contact your 17 year old boyfriend when you're 14, and making out with said 17 year old boyfriend, means your mom loses her parental rights. It's also un-libertarian to take the position that 3 husbands in 6 years and an unmarried person having sleepovers with adults is grounds for terminating parental rights
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE JUDGE DIDN'T TERMINATE THE MOM'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WHEN THOSE ALLEGATIONS FIRST CAME UP!
And he could very well get convicted based on nothing more than age. However no one should support government tyranny.
Yet you support the government tyranny of terminating parental rights over legal behavior that the judge didn't even use as a reason for terminating parental rights.
You support terminating parental rights over objectionable videos on TikTok.
We know for a fact she lied about her age and she lied about the daughter being drugged and raped by the dad. She's a serial liar and the smart move is to doubt her hearsay.
All we know is that the medical evidence didn't prove the daughter was drugged. The story doesn't tell us how long it took after the last alleged sexual encounter with dad was the test done or how the test was done. The date rape drug GHB is only in urine for 24 hours and can only be detected in hair for up to a month.
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/ghb-abused/how-long-in-system
And it's not unusual for child rape victims especially to not be immediately forth coming. Remember, one of R. Kelly's victims denied she was the one on video.
Also the date rape drug ketamine causes transient amnesia, meaning it goes away.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32317201/
So a victim might only remember a sexual assault some time later.
Not too far off base here. Even if she was a year older and legal, he shouldnt have had sex with her. Because something is legal doesn't mean one should do it.
But it's about the ongoing actions of the emotional unstable mother. She's not being railroaded and needs help.
She was CLEARLY being railroaded by a politically connected father. And he's a pot calling a kettle black. I doubt that was the first time or the last time he's had drunk sex with a much younger woman. Her emotional well being, that you've put such an emphasis on, had nothing to do with the order terminating parental rights. It was the cellphone and how it was being used. (Posting videos that were not pornographic since TikTok doesn't allow porn and contacting the 17 year old boyfriend).
Edit: But I'm glad you at least can admit that drunk sex with a much younger woman is not a good thing to do. Which means that laws that punish such behavior are not the same as laws that punish drinking from the wrong water fountain (Jim Crow). What is odd is that you're simultaneously in favor of a judge essentially punishing
legal behavior. And because I don't think the legal behavior should be punished by terminating parental rights, you think I condone it. That's what's not making sense. And most of the legal behavior your complaining about did NOT result in the termination of parental rights. It's just when the cell phone argument came up that the parental rights were terminated until public pressure convinced the judge in question that he screwed up.
What were these sexually explicit TikToks that you said I posted, which I don't even know how to post, talking about? I know AF posted something from TikTok that was shown on news stations that I found disturbing but not pornographic.
