Dutch paedophiles to launch political party

Remove all ads!

http://news.aol.com/strange/story/_a/dutch-pedophiles-to-launch-political/n20060530085709990013

Only cut the first bit of the story, for full article, click the link

Their policies include
> Cutting the legal age for sex from 16 to 12
> Legalization of child pornography and sex with animals
> The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening
> Toddlers should be given sex education
> Youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves
> Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal
> The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public
Oh and my favourite ones
> free train travel for all

As for reducing the legal age if sexual intercourse, there probably are quite a lot of people under the age of 16 who have sex but probably only around 15 maybe 14. 12 seems a little bit to young to me, the're probably are not many children that age with enough maturity to make that decision, especially if it is someone a lot older and more experienced than them.

 

How can they possibly think that this will get any support whatsoever? I'd just like to see them try to do a rally in a public place, if only to see how long it takes before they get turned into slurry by the general public.

 

Free train travel doesn't do anyone good. The rail infrastructure is privately owned here, so if you don't have to pay for the tickets, the government will probably pay them from our taxes. So, there's no such thing as free train travel.

Err, this isn't about free train travel?


About the pedo-party: they're just gonna rattle things up a bit, and hell, they are allowed to do so because of freedom of speech and such. Just because something is generally not accepted doesn't mean you can't say it. Don't get me wrong, punish the bastards if they do something against the law, but they are allowed to express their opinion, even if it grosses people out. It's not like they're gonna get votes and get into the parliament or something like that.

 

I think there should be some limits in what a political party wants to archive if such thing is agains current law.

 

Wow. I cannot believe people are actually trying to do this kind of stuff... I doubt anyone would accept a bill lowering the sex age to twelve, especially if it is requested by pedophiles... Maybe to 15, but that is for the kids' sakes, not for people who want to touch them.

This is downright disgusting! Child Pornography?! Legal prostitution at the age of 16?! Absolutely not! Yes, they can say what they want, but trying to get laws like this passed (or bills, or whatever) is disgusting, disrespectful, and immoral. The no respect I had for pedophiles just dropped into the negatives.

This makes me sick.

 

They will sooner or later get support from some lefties.

Remember when I said a year or two ago that paedophiles would form political initiatives and people said that wouldn't happen?

First was removing the criminal penalty for adultery, removing the stigma from premarital sex etc, then putting forward gay rights, putting in place some teenie ages of consent etc..., there was also more and more allowance for porn, even late teen actors in nude or sexual scenes in popular films, including the cinematic classics. At some point people were bound to ask for decriminalisation of necrophilia, zoophilia and paedophilia if bodies aren't stolen, animals beaten, children "consent".

There is just no end to that stuff once you let it roll.

People who like it with babies, animals or corpses or without clear consent have only one right: to immediate and professional treatment.

 

Where do you think these "lefties" will come from, Chev? As a liberal and a democrat, I'm more than a little offended that you would lump me in with peophiles and perverts. Pedophilia, or the acceptance of pedophiia, is not a liberal or conservative trait. Your assertion is rude, condescending, and absurd.

 

I don't lump you there and calling my assertions, as you call them, names, will not change anything. Things which are supported now would have made people take offence several decades ago like you are now doing. It's quite obvious, too, that recognition won't come from advocates of traditional social relationships and morality. Besides, it's not like all gay rights advocates are gay, all feminists female, all pro-choicers would abort etc, so the lumping together is a gross simplification and not a concrete argument you can use.

Also, politically, liberalism and democracy don't go together in a swift conjunction, unless you mean economic liberalism, which is definitely not left-wing, but actually right-wing. There is a liberal-democratic political orientation, but it basically relies on finding a certain compromise by reducing liberalism and democratism to such an extent as allows conjunction. As you put it, it can mean anything from nothing to everything.

 

I am also offended. I am disgusted with pedophiles, and most 'lefties' are too... pedophilia is not a conservative/liberal debate, it is a moral/immoral debate, and I don't suggest you call liberal people immoral.


Pedophilia is way different from gay marriage, premarital sex (yes, I know they have it, but they are not the same... not all fornicators are pedophiles), and the other topics you are so clearly against.

 

Oh for...it's not like he said the entire left, of every country in the world (this is happening in Denmark, remember), would support them. And any "lefties" that do would be the crackpots of the left, like some of the more...visible rightists, like Pat Robertson, are crackpots.

The only difference is that noone from the right would even consider this, as set in the current ways as they are. But some of those a little too open to change might.

 

Aside from the fact that conservatives are just as likely to engage in pre-marital sex.....

Seriously, Chev, there has been pro man-boy activism in the United States since at least 1920. NAMBLA has been around since 1978. Gay marriage and adultery does not lead to pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, or bestiality. Homosexuality and adultery have existed for a long, long time. Acceptance of gay marriage or de-criminalisation of adultery do not, on any planet, lead to such things. The idea is not only offensive, but laughable.

Conservatives are just as likely to be pedophiles as liberals and liberals are no more likely to accept pedophilia or bestiality than conservatives. Pedophilia is not an issue of personal freedom. It's a crime. The minor is a victim, and liberals believe in protecting the rights of minors and victims. Liberalism, in no way, on no planet, would make one more likely to support pedophilia or any similar victimization. Someone who supports pedophilia would be more appropriately classified as mentally ill, sexually deviant, or a pervert. Liberals, however, would probably be more open to free public transportation.....so they would be more receptive to part of this party's agenda.

[ June 04, 2006, 03:48: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

It isnt even a moral/immoral debate, it is a right/wrong debate. Big difference. One is about the perception of right and wrong and the other is about hurting or not hurting other human beings.

 

To be pedophiles, yes (moreso, I think); to support pedophiles, no. You're taking one thing and making it into another; this is not about who's likely to be a pedophile. This is about public support. It is the openness to new ideas of the left that, when taken to a ridiculous extreme, lets in the idea that maybe it's "not that bad".

 

Pedophilia is a crime. Liberals do not support crime. Liberals don't even support child labor. I find it highly unlikely that someone who doesn't support child labor would support sex with children. It's exploitation and victimization, and liberals don't support exploitation and victimization. Ever.

On issues of personal freedom liberals are more likely to defend personal freedom. That much is true. Pedophilia, however, is simply not an issue of personal freedom. It is an egregious violation of the rights of the minor involved. It isn't an issue of personal freedom. It is sick, disgusting, and no better than rape. By the way, Liberals aren't too keen on rape, either, before anyone asks.

 

What they're talking about isn't crime. What they're talking about is changing the laws. Change the law, and it's not a crime anymore. It'd still be morally repugnant to the majority, but no longer a crime.

Good one. There are any number of examples, but it really shouldn't be neccessary for such a blatantly false sweeping generalization. Almost never, yes; never, no.

In the end, though, it shouldn't matter who they get support from, if anybody. There aren't that many crazies to get this off the ground. But then I can't say for sure since I don't know the Dutch people that well.

 

It is currently a crime. One that liberals don't want to see changed. Pedophilia is a violation of the rights of minors. Liberals do not believe in legalizing the violation of the rights of another.

Felinoid. We are talking about "liberal values". Victimization and exploitation are NEVER liberal values. They aren't conservative values, either.

 

You personally know the opinions of every Dutch liberal? I doubt it.

Pure semantics. You don't need to violate rights when you can simply take them away.

Or conservative values. Or even pedophile values (they think they're just "loving" the kids ). I don't think you'll find any group nowadays that actually publicly advocates victimization or exploitation, except maybe the KKK or groups like that. But most do it anyway.

 

Taking away rights still violates them. Stop arguing semantics here. You know damn well that liberalism does not make one more likely to support violating the rights of children. You are defending an assertion which is far less founded and far more general (not to mention inflamatory) than any I've made.

 

I can't believe you are taking this seriously. First nothing is going to happen because the whole idea is beyond ridiculous. Second something went wrong with people who think like this, I for one cannot take them seriously thus making a debate void of any logical reasoning. Third this is of course happening in the Netherlands, probably the only place where this could happen and most certainly the only place where people can laugh about this stuff and just shake their head and forget it within a month.

These people need help, but IMO we shouldn't waste any money.

 

You can't violate what isn't there, or else we'd be violating pedophiles' right to have sex with children. And semantics are at the core of this debate. What is legal and what is not, what is a crime and what is not, what is your right and what is not; it's all semantics based on the words on paper that we call laws.

Again semantics. We're not talking about violating their rights. I would imagine rape allegations would be taken even more seriously from the 'newly legalized', and a consenting 12 year old and 30 year old would be within their rights, provided this passed. That doesn't make it any less stomach-turning, but this is about the law, not morals. (Though admittedly the law is usually enforced morals, I don't think that applies in the case of this passing.)

I defended chev exactly once when people started being offended by something he didn't say, and then myself when you applied the same thing that neither of us said to me. Since then I've been picking apart your misdirections and semantics.