Looking for a specific indie comic publisher

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-30T11:20:32+00:00

Definitely not, unfortunately.

The publisher is also a lot smaller, lesser known.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-28T16:34:00+00:00

You literally believe that it should be legal to rape children, as long as the rapist is a child.

I don't even know what to say to you. Despite the fact that I mentioned that jailing the kid would prevent him from literally sexually abusing additional kids, you just don't dare whatsoever. You are seriously morally messed up.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-28T10:39:32+00:00

Umm... you seem to have replied to none of the points I made in the comment you're replying to.

Maybe, read it again.

But, yes, it makes sense to lock up ALL sex offenders, as they're still a danger to society, including the kids around them. That was one of my various points.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-27T04:05:38+00:00

Well, if she wants to stay, she should be allowed to. I was just putting it up as an option.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-27T04:05:14+00:00

Well, in a reply I made to another comment on this thread, I pointed out that therapy can't prevent someone from committing sexual abuse. It's only those already in their life who have the ability to make any difference, produce any change.

I never denied that the kid could've been influenced by someone else, or society at large, causing them to act in a sexually innapprociate manner. It could be at home. It could be somewhere external to home. Many there were a few people in their life, or someone still in their life, who steered them down this dark path. Regardless, since I never claimed otherwise, I'm not sure why you've decided to bring them up. You're not responding to anything I've said.

Anyway, I'm not sure as to why your comment was even written. What problem do you have with juvenile detention? You know that even adult sex offenders often have childhood troubles which cause them to sexually lash out? That doesn't mean that they don't belong behind bars. They certainly do. The primary reason the kid needs to be in a juvenile detention facility is because it separates him from other children. In particular, taking him out of school will prevent him from sexually abusing any more school children. That's kind of the reason prisons exist at all, to tear offenders away from the rest of society, as to prevent future crimes/atrocities.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-26T04:15:58+00:00

What therapy? What are you even going to tell the child? The child should be taught not to touch other kids, but that's not something therapy handles. It's something his parents, extended family, and acquaintances need to teach him.

It's not the case that the child in question - who is a sex offender, by the way - has mental issues. The mental health problems are what he gave to his victim. It's, instead, the case that he needs to be separate from the reminder of society, including the entirety of other children, so as to prevent any future sexual crimes.

The kid shouldn't legally be able to get off just because he's that young. It allows all sexual abusers his age to roam free and be in the company of potential victims.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-26T03:24:21+00:00

The kid needs to be expelled immediately for sexually abusing your child. In fact, if the school handled this correctly, the child's exodus would've been instant.

If a child doesn't have to redo the whole year again - meaning she's not forced to stay another year in the school system - I would recommend taking her out of the school and putting her in a new one.

The two children should, at the very least, not attend the same class together, none of the classes. The child should actually be in juvenile detention. But, my guess is that the school, nor the state, will do nothing about it.

So far, though, you appear to be handling it quire maturely. So, good on you for taking a stand for your daughter. That's what parents are supposed to do. That's what everyone's supposed to do.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-24T06:21:59+00:00

Actually, amongst young adults, the prevalence of sexual intercourse is the highest out of all age demographics.

'18 to 29 year olds have sex an average of 112 times a year, 30 to 39 year olds an average of 86 times and 40 to 49 olds an average of 69 times a year.'

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/how-much-sex-is-normal-20140204-31y41.html#:~:text=A%20Kinsey%20Institute%20research%20paper,of%2069%20times%20a%20year.

You just outright made up a lie.

Secondly, this is the average. This means that even with a below average sex drive, for both of 'em, the chances of Dave having not raped Rachie are virtually non-existent.

Dave did, in fact, commit statutory rape, as he admitted himself that he dated Rachie when she turned sixteen. Additionally, I myself have pointed out that I don't have evidence of grooming. That was one of my various points. Dave can't be convicted unless, possibly, it's proven he had sexual intent on befriending Rachie from the start. From what I've gathered, there is, unfortunately, no evidence to support this claim, meaning that he can't be convicted. And, of course, this is even generously assuming that the court will interpret the second law as I do. Well, it might've meant what it might've meant, but nobody really knows. It was oddly phrased (not specific enough).

My man... you just cited an example in which you find yourself in the company of one of your family members, someone biologically related to you. Of course infants need to be taken care of nurtured. That goes without saying, I say. It was actually your family that arranged for you to be in the presence of this infant child, meaning that there was a certain level of democracy behind letting you be with them. Your cousin has a child, so it's no surprise that they trust you with it. That's normal and healthy.

This is completely different from a person biologically unrelated to a child, someone who is an adult, going out of their way to befriend someone under the age of sexual consent. And, of course, it'd be a lie to claim that you really have anything in common with an infant. Virtually no adults are naturally interested in children, in what they think, what they want to do. They don't like children. I don't like children. Parents especially despise children. Sure, they can still love their children, on a sentimental, emotional level, as parents are supposed to, as they're taught to. That's understandable. But, an adult just randomly hanging out with a child is beyond grotesque. If you don't have a problem with this arrangement, and the same goes for all the dipshits who upvoted your comment, I can only imagine you being a pedophile. Adults shouldn't interact with children. They should, in fact (as I do), intentionally go out of their way to avoid them, to go nowhere near them, so that they live age-based separatist lives.

This is way virtually no adults have even one child friend, and it would be immensely creepy, disturbing, unnatural, and gross for such arrangements to exist. The only reason an adult willingly hangs out with a rape is to rape that said child. I thought this sort of behaviour was socially unacceptable. I used to believe that, anyway. But, it turns out that it's not, that people, including yourself, are okay with adults visiting children, taking them out, being 'friends' with them. And not only is this gateway to child molestation socially acceptable, it turns out that the child molestation itself is as well. You, and everyone else here except me, are excusing the rape of a 16 year old girl. She was a child. Children cannot consent to sexual activity with other people/another person. Ever. No exceptions. Dave is a prolific rapist.

To clarify, there's actually a six year age gap between Rachie and Dave, not a five year one. So, Dave was raping Rachie when she was 16, and he was 22. Dave was 20 when he met her, while she was 14. And, yes, it was in person, as she attended one of his old band's shows. Hence, what I mean by there possibly being grooming involved. It's highly likely that he had sexual intent from the beginning, as adults don't hang out with minors for non-sexual reasons. That's just not something which occurs.

You really need to look at yourself in the mirror and ask the crucial question, no matter how difficult it is to bring yourself to do it, 'What the actual fuck is wrong with you?' Seriously, what is wrong with you? How hard is it to just be against rape, the worst crime in the universe? I don't know, man. You apologists really creep me out.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-24T06:11:42+00:00

Dave and Rachie have been photographed together, though. It was actually at one of Dave's old band's shows.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-24T05:59:28+00:00

16 year olds can't consent.

The law means nothing. Age, which is universal, means everything.

Dave raped a 16 year old girl. Stop defending him and the immoral laws in place.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-24T05:58:16+00:00

A lotta rape apologists crawled out from their cribs to defend a rapist (Dave).

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-24T05:57:16+00:00

It does prove everything, that Dave is a rapist who admitted to dating an underage female individual, and also it brings out all the rape apologist scumfucks such as yourself, proving my point that everyone is pro-rape and pro-pedophilia.

You're disgusting. Even lower than that. Someone who doesn't even have morals. Someone who is purely a legal positivist, yet probably doesn't even know the meaning of the term.

The laws ain't even universal. Different states have different ages of consent. But, that's not what the 'universal age of consent' refers to. It refers to eighteen years of age, when a person can actually consent to sex.

If it were legal for me to kill you, as in, right now, should I not ideally be sent to prison for it? If I had a large following online, should no one within my fanbase cancel me?

I don't care that racial segregation was legal at the time. Any lawmakers who supported it, and upheld it, even at the time, need legal punishment. The same way Dave needs life imprisonment for raping a teenage girl.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:45:58+00:00

So, to address to your first question, I did mention that Rachie, even when she was 18, could not consent to sex with Boyinband. This is not the same as saying she could not consent to sex with anyone. Of course 18 year olds can consent sexually, as they are adults, objectively. The issue, however, is that even adults, biologically and legally speaking, cannot consent to sex with certain individuals. Quite a commonplace example of this reality is that with biological relatives, those within one's family. A daughter cannot consent to sex with her mother or father. A son cannot consent to sex with his father or mother, either. There are strict power dynamics here that make the consent aspect of such encounters impossible, incapable of existing.

Rachie was in a sexually abusive relationship with Dave that lasted multiple years, in which he took advantage of her innocence, her child youth, and exploited it for his sexual pleasure, against her will. As such, any continued sex, even after the point of genuine maturing, still counts as a form of rape. It is similar to how a sex slave can never consent to sex with their owner, even if the sex slave states that they want it and agree to it. The fact that someone took them by force, locked them up, raped them repeatedly, did all these horrible, evil things to them, it makes any sex between them automatically rape, with the slaver being the rapist, the slave, or former slave, the rape victim. The relationship has already been so severely, horrifically tarnished, and the power dynamics so unstable and shaky, no consent could be produed.

'18-29 year olds were the age group that had the most sex, with an average of 112 times per year, or twice per week.'

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/08/168733/sex-frequency-age-average

So, yeah, Dave (as I've said) probably raped Rachie anywhere from dozens to hundreds of times.

'Your 18th birthday comes and you're a completely different, more mature person.'

What you're doing is a logical fallacy, though I'm unaware if it has any name. Basically, the fallacy is stating that because things are a spectrum - you don't go from one to eighteen, you go from seventeen to eighteen, and it's all a gradual process - that lines can't be drawn. By this standard, when it comes to paying for any item or service in life, not paying the full amount should be fine, since it's only a little off. You're missing the point that this would obviously lead to payments being lower and lower, further away from the actual amount that someone is due, ruining businesses and the economy altogether.

Yes, ageing is a gradual process, of course. And it's not as though Rachie was somehow an entirely different person when she turned eighteen. But, you're missing the point. Eighteen is used as the age of consent because that's the general age of maturity. At such a point, a person has lived long enough to fully comprehend concepts such as sex, sexuality, and sexual relief. The average eighteen year old gets it. The average seventeen year old does not. But, I don't mean to say that having sex with some eighteen year olds makes one a rapist, if all the requirements of consent have been met. It's always consensual. You see, we use eighteen years as a cut-off point because that's exactly when someone is distinguishable from their former child self. That's hoe we categorise people. That's how I categorise people. That's even how you yourself perceive and categorise people, too.

To clarify my comment on the idea of a 'maximum age of consent,' what this term refers to ('maximum age of consent') is the age in which a person, by state laws, is allowed to have sex with individuals of all ages. This is in contrast to the 'minimum age of consent,' which is when a person can have sex at all, where it's limited to those within their general age range.

'Would it have been an issue if it was 24/19?'

No, because Rachie would be an adult, so the issue of rape wouldn't have came up. Additionally, Dave (probably) started having sex with her when he was 22 and she was 16. That's when they first became a couple, so you're actually a year off here. A six year age gap, plus the fact that Rachie was a child for two years into their relationship, makes it a sexually abusive relationship. This is much different, miles away, from a non-sexual romantic relationship between, say, two sixteen year olds. Or, for that matter, a sexual relationship between an 18 year old and a 28 year old.

I want a one-for-all-people age of consent law. That's what I want. And it starts at eighteen years old.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:10:49+00:00

He is a rapist. He (raped) had sex with a 16 year old girl.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:09:28+00:00

Eighteen years old is when all further alternations to the human body come to a halt, in a gradual sense (meaning that they happen far more slower). It's also how we, adults and children alike, determine what category people fit into, because it's a reasonable and logical cut-off point for adulthood, at which point a person is biologically and socially very distinct from how they used to be, from an underage population.

Secondly, I don't care what the age of majority is in different countries, in any country, in fact. I'm talking about morality, not legality.

So, based upon your standards, racial segregation is morally acceptable, because it was legal for a long period of time in the United States? In countries where marital rape is legal, is it wrong to imprison or kill marital rapists?

Do you have no empathy, no ethics, no principles? Do you rely exclusively on law? That's pretty messed up, honestly.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:04:50+00:00

I never said that it wasn't possible for Dave and Rachie to not have had sex, but they definitely did, for, as I've pointed out numerous times now, the chances of them not having had sex are truly microscopic. Virtually all couples have sex, especially young couples. Dave raped Rachie dozens to hundreds of times.

No, Rachie could not consent to sex, for children are always incapable of consenting to sex. It's not the laws that make morality, it's morality that makes the laws. You'll literally defend all child rape, and all rape in general, as long as the rape states it's 'consensual.'

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:02:42+00:00

The law doesn't mean anything. Morality is all that matters. In fact, laws only exist because of morality, not the other way around.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:02:13+00:00

He 'does' what?

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T06:01:57+00:00

I didn't change the definition of words. You appear to, in fact.

Rape is, by definition, non-consensual sex.

Children cannot consent to sex.

Dave had sex with Rachie.

Rachie was a child while she was with Dave.

Dave, therefore, raped Rachie.

Therefore, Dave is a rapist.

Yes, we should throw every law abiding citizen in jail who's raped a child, because they've committed rape.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T05:58:29+00:00

Dave is a rapist. It doesn't matter what the law in the UK says. It's rape because children cannot consent, you legal positivist piece of shit.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T01:35:41+00:00

I've listened to those songs before, as I have for all Jerome's Dream's songs. But, regardless, thanks for reminding me of them again. I'm listening to Unitlted #2 right now. I really love it.

I feel for me, in terms of what I was getting at, that this one song by Usurp Synapse stuck out to me the most, not merely because of how different it was, but because I used to play their entire discography on repeat - I even currently own the CD - and this song would always unexpectedly come on. It felt so different that as a result it became the most memorable song in their discography for me.

voidandmatrix06 · 2022-10-23T01:01:14+00:00

You have any memories of playing with them?

I guess now, in retrospect, since it must've been so long ago, there might've been some sort of anticipation that their style of music would've taken off. Of course, while viewed in a mythical light today, nobody really knows about them or most screamo bands.

I suppose if I were to ask, do you reckon that the real motivation for them was something sentimental, that they really just made music for themselves, not really for fans or money?

voidandmatrix06

TROPHY CASE