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

[Umfuld]

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

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?

[TteFAboB]

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?

[Umfuld]

Unless we're willing to lower the voting age to 12 too

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

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

Try for some perspective. When alcohol was illegal in the US, I'm sure many people ran for office on the 'undo prohabition' idea. By your logic, this was criminal of these people.

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.

[Umfuld]

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

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.

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.

[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.

[Umfuld]

"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.

[TteFAboB]

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If public torture to please the TV audience would be legalized by the text of a law - is it okay, then?

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

[Umfuld]

public torture to please the TV audience

I thought that's what American Idol was?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

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.

How exactly do you destroy a family by alcohol? Drown them in it? Not that I don't understand what you're trying to say, but in this discussion precise wording matters. Thus, likely actions by one or more people abusing alcohol almost destroyed your family, and not the beverage itself. This is a very important distinction to make to understand where myself, Skybird, and others are coming from: pedophilia is in itself abusive. Alcohol is enjoyed by many socially with no adverse effect on anyone else. The prohibition against alcohol use was done because society feared it would be abused and lead to the degeneration of society. Pedophilia is in itself abusive and degenerate.

This kind of goes to the distinction between ethics and morality. Prohibition is an ethical choice as alcohol is, in itself, a neutral quantity and the only political decision is whether or not to permit it, and if it is permitted, how to regulate it. It is not considered "evil" although, as with most things in life, it may be abused and result in evil being done. That, again, is an ethical debate as no attempt is being made to define "good" or "evil" in it.

Sexual relations with 12 year olds is a whole other thing entirely. Its a moral debate since the act is condemned by society, labeled as a perversion, and considered in itself evil. In discussing whether or not to permit it you are raising moral questions that have a very fundamental impact on society and which cannot be settled within the political sphere because they are not part of that sphere.

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.

Cars are not designed to kill children so there's no "cause" there.

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.

You won't convince anyone of the strength of your arguements by calling them children. I'm all for debate but this is not debate. You are simply rambling here and resorting to unwarranted ad hominen attack.

[Umfuld]

No. Not an attack. Your logic is that of a child. Sorry.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Umfuld

No. Not an attack. Your logic is that of a child. Sorry.

Oh dear, scandium and skybird are anything but children.

[Umfuld]

Skybird said this:

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.

Now from that, I don't know exactly if they're Christian or not. But it seems so. Not sure. But then 30 minutes later, they posted this:

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

So yeah, in debate, tact is never my goal. That's just the way I am. But to go from putting people down for not really practicing the teaching of Christ to literally throwing stones at others? I have a problem with that mentality.
Always have. Always will.