Who will dare to speak against an age of consent of 13? What sort of monster would raise his voice against such a thing?

You can all note in your books that in less than a generation whoever opposes the idea of children being raised by sex maniacs will be considered cruel and without feelings, a fascist oppressor of minorities, a Nazi.

Every act of pedophilia is a consenting act, otherwise it would be a RAPE, to legitimize consented pedophilia is to legitimize any and all pedophilia. Who is going to reject the wonderfull love between Man and Boy or Girl as an attitude socially unacceptable?

Today it's a political party, tomorrow it's a law, the next day your Grandchildren (Europeans do not apply, as you barely have any children anyway) will live in a world where the kids saturday play activity is going to his best friend's house to have a sex party with his friend's father, and the friends of his father, everything consented, everything legal, everything fine, everything politically correct.

Spain? The same spain thatb currently thinks on giving higher primates the same legal rights like humans?

Age of consent does not mean that at that age sexual intercourse with an fulla< dult automatically is legal. Usually it still is object to many restrictions specified in laws. That is a definite in Germany, at least. Here age of consent is 14 and 16. If you have sex with a 15 year old, you nevertheless get into trouble, if you are above 18 yourself.

However, you do not get the imprtant point: pedophilia is not about discussing the age of consent. it is about sex with children of ridiculously low age, or even babies. the point is that their agendy may say "12" now, but tomorrow they will call everyone a intolerant extremist who does not agree to a lowering of that age to 10, on the basis of having previously accepted that a politcal party is accepted in society that explicitly focusses on issues like sex with animals, sex with children.

ever have been busy with pedophiles yopurself? I have been psychologist. I needed to learn about that a bit. Believe me, pedophilia is something that no society and culture should respect and accept. A party making that issue a part of it's agenda, and is shameless enough trying to make sex with animals an object of public debate, openly sympathizes with pedophiles. And this is unacceptable, because pedophiles do not stop being attracted at an age of 12, but even far more younger, sometimes the age is not given in years, but months.

People who got abused in their early childhood, and even at oh so high and mature ages like 10, 12 years, mostly suffer from that for the rest of their life, especially if it is no experience with some child of the same age, but with an older adult of fourty, for example (why does a 40 year old want to come to deal with a child of 12 or lower, btw?). could be that they will never be able to maintain a loving relation. Experience sexual satisfaction, or evemn have distant relations to the other sex. Friends. Family. Carreer in a job where they have to deal with people. Nightmares. Deep traumatization. Deep wounds inside. Mistrust. Depression. Suicidal tendencies

All this only because some . horny old bastards want to make around with a babyface.

Wehret den Anfängen.

I also could argue on the basis of that at least in Germany "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (denial of assistance?) is under legal penalty.

Giving direct or indirect support to such a movement by tolerating it to be treated like an ordinary faction inside community is as if you are raping a child yourself - the guilt is the same. Because such a faction is no normal ordinary faction. It is sick, and evil. And it should be brandmarked as that: sick, and evil.

How could a young human being too young by mind to decide reasonably and understandingly on the question of consent - decide on consent...? We are talking not of young adults, with fully developed characters, knowledge, experience- we are talking about CHILDREN! A ten year old does not express consent, because she/he does not know what he/she is talking about, and what it all is about. Pedophiles are perverts that try to make the approach maybe tender and persuasive, manipulating the child over a, longer time. first the candies, than the playtoys, than an occasional storke or hug, than some relief in clothing, and then... children of too young ages do not know how to defend, they get "paralysized", for example, and let it happen simply because they do not know any better. They are CHILDREN, dammit!

An act of pedophilia always is a rape - the rape of a child. For the same reason children are not rgarded as capable of contracting at a too young age, they also cannot be assumed to be able to decide on the question of consent.

Age of Consent around the world:
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5...sent7pb.th.png
From Wi[k]ipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Yes, that's true of many of the US states. But what I just read about Spain said this was not the case. (Not sure if it's right or not, just did some quick research.) As 14-50 is just as legal as 14-17.

I guess my point is that Spain's age was 12 within the past decade. And here you have people calling for murder of a would be political party that seeks that same age of consent.

I'll state again that I have very strong feelings about protecting children from sex with adults. Both because of my family history and because I feel it's clearly immoral. But reactionary attitudes upset me. No matter how just you may think you are, you must repsect others rights. And in this specific case, the rights to seek change in current laws is a right I would die for.

Do I want these people to win and change the laws? Hell no. But as a citizen you have the right to vote. Not to murder. If the rest of the population disagrees with your morality, then move or seek to change the laws yourself.

To state redundently that this issue cannot be discussed makes me sick. The only issue being discussed is a persons right to legally change the law. And no matter how distasteful you find this particular case, you can't make exceptions.

Or, you can. But you won't like the end result. Trust me.

That's true. But who mentioned a ten year old? The article says they are seeking to change it to 12.
I hope you understand that no one here on this thread is saying this is okay. I'm debating I think it's wrong to prevent anyone from seeking to legally change a law. If it's sick and immoral, then you've nothing to worry about. It won't pass. Understand?


I personally think South Park was right when they said no one should have sex before they are 17. That seems about right to me.

We must not take this matter lying down. These nutters may be able to pull it off, seeing how other madmen managed to get their policies passed. They must be attacked as the sick and twisted people that they are, and have their 'ideas' :doh: challenged at every step.

It's the old paedo line of 'the children want sex; we fulfill their desires' is ridiculous. The children must be vindicated (I love that word) of any compliance with these sick perverts who manipulate their young and naive minds. Retribution must be exacted and these 'people' charged with any and all applicable offensives.

If this fails, we will resort to plan B :yep:. Meet me in Amsterdam with several caltrops, a brazier, two iron pokers and a Luger :rock:

http://cyborgcow.net/gallery/albums/...er-general.jpg

Sounds good, Hitler.

I'm not afraid...ITS PERVERTED!

And I think that we haven't declined too much to the point that most people won't stand up and say what a stupid and sick idea it is.... most people anyway...hopefully?

Hitler was elected democratically.

The people doesn't always know what's best for them, and sometimes must even be protected from their own short-sighted brutality.

Make a referendum for the death penalty in a region where crime is rampant and it will win.

Agreed. But by whom? People?

And you're right about Hitler being elected. Just as Jesus was legally executed by a state. Yet, most of his followers are in favor of the death penalty.

People. Whatcha gonna do? :damn:

Yes, indeed.

When people are looking in the long-term, to write a constitution or a bill of rights for example, they are protecting themselves from moments where all they care is short-term.

Unless we're willing to lower the voting age to 12 too, then the abused children get the chance to vote against their abusers, otherwise, who's going to defend them? The Fascists?

That's a very good point. Pretty much sums it all up.

Any comparison between legalizing pedophelia and legalizing alcohol falls on its face for one simple reason: alcohol use when it was prohibitted was a victimless crime. My decision to consume this beverage doesn't require a partner. Further, to do so legally now I must be 19 years of age or older. In some places it is 21. Do you not see how abusrd it is to compare the legalization of a substance, for those 19 to 21 years of age, to legalizing sexual relations with someone who is 12?

That is the second aspect of absurdity in your arguement: the notion that were this so called "political party" (which they are not, they are an association of perverts FYI) voted into office by adults that it would then be ok for them to legalize sexual relations with children.

Society does not even permit children to vote and for good reason. It does not permit them to consume alcohol either and again for good reason. But it is "free political expression" to attempt to change the laws to allow adults to have sexual relations with 12 year olds? No, it is perverted. As Skybird has said, there are certain things in society that don't belong within the realm of political debate and sexual relations with 12 year old kids is one of them. This is not "politics", this is perversion.

It doesn't matter what you say. To say that someone can't use the system in place to change laws like everyone else because you don't agree with them is nonsense.
In this case, sure. It's pretty clear what's right and wrong. But it's just like free speech. Allow one restriction and you open the door for total control (like we do pretty much have).
You missed my point completely with your rebutal.

I want to insult you for not understanding the fundimental idea behind this attitude, simply because I know explaining it won't do any good.

But I'm not gonna bother.

What? most followers of Jesus are pro death penalty? Strange. I have exactly the opposite perception. maybe many american fundamentalists are. Wannabe-christians who label themselves as soemthing that they are not. Because I am usually very strict and precise in my differing between church/Christianity/sects, and those who truly follow the message of Jesus , I see that statement as absurd. There is not one favouring death penalty and following Jesus.

And Hitler being elected. Of course public intimidation and misinformation never have anything to do with electorial processes. Elected is elected.

No, I was talking about raising a basis of public acceptance for pedophilia. And that wannabe-party also is about sex with animals. And I did not talk of murder, but letting representatives of such a group know what public opinion thinks of them, by throwing eggs, tomatoes and stones at them wherever they appear on the scene. I also said that if I have to choose between death for a pedophile, and the wellbeing of a child, I choose for the child. Which makes killing him an act of prevention. I am an opponent to "detah penalty". The term itself even does not make sense and is unlogical, becasue a penalty is a sanction meant to change somebody's behavior, not to make him seize to exist. death penalty, imo, is nothing else than taking revenge. But under certain conditions, force and violence is acceptable for me in order to prevent some major evil deed being done.

No, not all demands, not all requests for rifghts are equal, and not all shall be tolerated. Else you could argue that the Nazis had a right to gas the Jews. It was correctly done - on the basis of rules and orders. Shopuld it be seen as a tolerable act, then? If public torture to please the TV audience would be legalized by the text of a law - is it okay, then? There asre things that shall always be excluded from being regarded as a normal issue being object to regular procedures of law-making and opinion-building. Raping children is one of these. A party propagating this, more or less directly, is not a party like any other party there is. It's success should not be object to public opinion building. Tolerating it as such just indicates to what ammount our society and culture already has detoriated. If their is the plague in your city, you do not have a debate wether you nwant to legalize it by law, or not. You try to kill it by the roots before the whole population has been infested.

I do not accept any attempt to legalize murder. It is not an issue of majority in opinion building, it is not an issue of public debate. It is my decision not to tolerate it, under no circumstances, no matter what the mob is demanding. Tolerance needs limits, else you do not differ between what you are willing to tolerate, and what not. Man, how often I have written about the need for limits to tolerance...

I also rule out that tolerance for such a party project is acceptable. I don't give anything for what social philosophers and lawmakers think of my attitude. It is wrong. Simply that. Always. No need to gigve it any freedom to maneouver.

Ethics rank higher than laws. Laws can be for the worst, anbd for the vil, becasue they are man'S work. but there is some universal ethic unaffected by laws, which is valid for every human being that labels it self as a civilized, social being. It is not a question of laws if ritual cannibalism during a parliamentary opening ceremny is allowed or not. It is no question of laws if rape of women is allowed or not. It is no question of laws if the connsumation of children is acceptabel or not. It must be considered as being banned, always. That there is no consensus in this is what is the real scandal here. Keep your laws for regulating traffic, and minor crimes. But don'T dare to subjugate basic humanitarian universal principles to lawmaking. Else you end up to question if living a life as a human being is really legal. And that is the attitude of a mind that led directly to the terms "lebensunwertes Leben" und concentration camps.

Quoting myself: "pedophilia is not about discussing the age of consent. it is about sex with children of ridiculously low age, or even babies. the point is that their agendy may say "12" now, but tomorrow they will call everyone a intolerant extremist who does not agree to a lowering of that age to 10, on the basis of having previously accepted that a politcal party is accepted in society that explicitly focusses on issues like sex with animals, sex with children."

And as Scandium said, and I also indicated, prohibition of a drugs and pedophilia do not compare, because the first crime has no victim, but the second has. That you compare these two nevertheless, and call a person a fashist if he does not agree with your anarchic ideal of unlimited tolerance thta does not make any difefrences anymore, tells volumes about you.

Bye.

"most followers of Jesus are pro death penalty? Strange. I have exactly the opposite perception. maybe many american fundamentalists are."

You are obviously unaware that Jesus was American. Just ask our president.



"No, not all demands, not all requests for rifghts are equal, and not all shall be tolerated. Else you could argue that the Nazis had a right to gas the Jews. It was correctly done"

No, it wasn't. It was fascism. Thanks for making my point for me.


"prohibition of a drugs and pedophilia do not compare, because the first crime has no victim"

Um...you're talking out of your rump there. As I said, my family was destroyed by alcohol. I guess you enjoy drinking so you have to try and tell yourself this. Knock yourself out.
As I said, I know booze does more damage to children everyday than sexual abuse. But, you like to drink, so just ignore that fact I guess?


Again, the entire point is you saying not to allow a political party, whose major issue is lowering the age of consent to 12. Where in Spain, it was 12 not 7 years ago. And is now, I guess, 13. Why aren't you protesting in Spain? Or, throwing rocks, as you say?
Have you bocotted products from Spain? Are you actively trying to get this law changed? Did you even know about it until I told you? No? Didn't think so.

I'm just so sick of seeing about once a month someone on some message board post an article about some pedophile and see the rest of the dimwits line up with comments like 'This is why I'm in favor of the death penalty.' And yes, often they are Christians.

Do you have any idea how many children are murdered each year? How many people are murdered each year?
To me, automobiles are a greater threat to children than pedophiles. But make a thread about the dangers of cars, and see how many people are willing to kill for that cause.

If you think you can have a free society and still pick and choose who runs for office and why, you are a moron. And after fascism has moved in (and in America, we are getting pretty close to that), a child's life won't be worth a plug nickle.
Not that it's worth much more than that now.

You think like a child.

I'm all for coherence, so, here I go.

EDIT: Ok, I'm willing to kill Spanish Chimpanzees and drunk drivers.

So you don't have to get so sick anymore. :up: :D

Give the FoX network a few years on this one... :roll: