You thought the baby in the tuble dryer story was bad! Dutch pedophile party launched

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.