Dutch paedophiles to launch political party

Remove all ads!

It most certainly is. So is the idea that "leftism" would make one more likely to support this idea.

Felinoid. Chev did say that this group would garner support from members of the left. Aside from being ridiculous, it is also very offensive and very condescending towards liberals. I, and any other "leftie", have every right to take offense to what he said......and, frankly, think he should take it back and apologize.

What? Slavery, while legal, was a violation of the rights of African Americans. It was a violation of women's rights that they could not vote.....even though it was legal to deny them that right. Segregation, while legal, was still a violation of the rights of African Americans. Child labor in the manufacturing industry during the early 1900's was still a violation of the rights of children even though it was "legal". If murder were legal, killing me would still violate my rights.

[ June 04, 2006, 04:32: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

So you think it's ridiculous to think that any of a group that you do not know would support something because you disagree with it and have the same extremely general political stance? Unh-hunh.

In the same way that it's offensive and condescending to acknowledge that Jeffrey Dahmer was a [insert Dahmer's political affiliation here]. Because that means all [insert Dahmer's political affiliation here]s eat people's skin. Unh-hunh (Mark 2). Just because some liberals might support it, does not imply that all of them implicitly support it. We're not lemmings.

Only if the statement applies to you. Which it doesn't.

And finally, the only general statement I made was about conservatives, in that they are too staid to even consider such a radical change. The only thing I said about liberals is that it's possible a couple might.

EDIT:

I begin to see the disconnect we're having on this particular issue. I'm talking about legal rights. When those things were legal, what happened did not violate their rights. You may see rights as 'God-given' or whatever, but I find those rather hard to define, as if you pick 100 people out of a crowd you'll get 100 different sets of rights; hence when I speak about rights, it is the legal kind, granted through law.

 

Maybe not an open public embrace (eww), but some concessions from a politician who wishes their support to put him over the top. A back room deal that would see campaign contributions from this lobby in exchange for some concessions could happen.

You and I have been saying this all along, but people don't listen...

Or lengthy incarceration in maximum security prisons where they can't hurt innocent civilians...

It's not laughable, it's downright scary.

These people are trying to redraw the line so that their desires are now legal with all but nothing we can say or do about it. Still immoral and wrong, but people here keep hammering me with Seperation of church and state when I get ranting about gay marriage, these perverts want to do the same to the rest of us.

That is a slippery slope. Chev claimed it started with decriminalizing fornication, homosexuality and adultery, and I'd agree with that. As the years have gone by, attitudes towards these behaviours has gone from moral indignation to gradual acceptance, to the point where fornication is rampant, adultery is relatively common, and homosexuality is increasing in prevalence. This very well could happen with pedophilia, beastiality and necrophilia if this party is successful.

And they want to use the same precedents that decriminalized fornication, adultery and homosexuality to get their way too. Now even criticizing same sex relations gets you a label of "bible thumping freak". Give these jerks their way, and you'll see opposition to their sick desires met with the same response.

I'm beginning to think that "theocracy" is not such a bad thing. Though church and state are seperate entities, if the state doesn't back up the church at some point, then society as a whole will suffer...

 

But don't you think pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia are on a completely different level? I mean, it is difficult for kids to make informed decisions, and thus they shouldn't be taken advantage of, especially if they aren't even sexually ready (or physically ready). Once they have been exposed/taught to/about sexuality, they can make their own decision (and I don't mean watching the 5th grade video, I mean about the age of 16-18), but before then is an aggregious (sp) offense to their rights, innocence, and choice.

Bestiality is... just weird. We don't know how the animals feel about it, so I think we shouldn't assume they want it, and thus, leave them alone.

Necrophilia is horrendous. The dead should be left alone and respected. They've been through enough already (assuming they've, ya know, died), and don't need their body defiled.

The step between fornication/adultery/homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality/necrphilia is huge.


(No flaming there )

 

That's retarded.

Well, no objection to dropping the legal age for sex, as IMO it's a pretty stupid and unenforcable law anyway. If it's pre-puberty things start getting pretty (okay, really) ****ed up though.

The rest are stupid.
(Well, if people want to go around naked in public, that's a 'whatever floats your boat' thing, but I'm not going out of my way to support it...)

 

@Saber:

I'm not saying liberalism equals being a paedophile or any such rubbish. I'm saying that people who believe there should be less legal boundaries pertaining to human behaviour are likely to support the idea of lowering the age of consent after some time. Or of allowing intercourse with corpses if the dead people have stated so in their last will. Or with animals perhaps if it isn't violent.

Mind you that some time ago, the idea of making gay sex legal sounded as absurd to even the most liberal liberals (on the moral, not economical side) as paedophilia is now. Or zoophilia. Heck, heterosexual premarital intercourse was viewed the same a hundred years ago. What will happen in 100 years from now?

How? I will grant you that gay sex includes the element of consent that can't be found in child abuse most of the time, but why would it not be a moral issue? And why do you insist that zoophilia is something that should be banned? Or necrophilia? Are you the owner of those animals or bodies or something?

What I'm trying to illustrate is that it's all in fact a moral issue and sooner or later everyone's moral sensibility is going to chime in and say it's time to put his foot down and finally say no to something.

Years ago, people thought, "Let's make fornication not a crime, but we would never make adultery legal." Later, other people thought, "Okay, let's make adultery a divorce ground but no longer a crime. And let's keep age of consent high and keep it man and woman only." And after some time, "Hmm... let's keep kids out of this, but it wouldn't hurt to make it legal for gay people." And then, "All right, let's make gay sex legal but no marriage or adoption." And after some time, "If gay sex is legal, gay lovers are doing no wrong, so why shouldn't they be able to marry or adopt children?"

So I'm foreseeing, "Well, if the 14 year old really wanted to sleep with the 20 year old, why shouldn't he/she be free to?" Or, "If the body's owner [aka the person whose body it is because you can't normally own dead human bodies] didn't mind, why should we?" Or, "It's his animals, after all, and it's not like he's beating or starving them. Should we really look into his bedroom/barn/both?" That kind of thing.

Also, you will notice that some people think age of consent restricts not only the adults who would sleep with minors, but that it actually restricts minors. See what Aikanaro says, for example.

@Felinoid:

There's a difference between some lefties and all lefties, as well as a difference between lefties and left wing persuasion. For example, I hold many left-sided views myself, but I'm not quite a lefty, no matter if some people think I actually am (let's start a politico-economical debate and you'll see ).

Ditto. That's what I was saying, basically. In Poland, we have politicians deeply rooted in their nuclear families and still going on gay parades. Why not ones sticking to fellow full adults for sex but supporting the idea of making age of consent lower or legalising sex with animals or corpses?

@Drew:

Hmmm... not sure. People who don't believe in it are more likely to be conservative than liberal. I, for one, can't really class myself as a conservative just like that, but most people would.

Yes. It was a matter of time before they started being taken seriously and given credit. Basically, with all perversion of sexual drive, it just takes time and frequency of happening until they are legalised.

In the person not. In the society yes. Legalising more and more things means pushing the boundaries. If limits are pushed like that, they begin to be seen as relative. Relative basically means more should go because it's a matter of individual conscience and the state should abstain from regulation. See my point? And incest regulations have already been minimised to just ancestors/descendants and siblings in most places because you can't really push it further. But I can imagine a citizen initiative in support of sibling marriage. In fact, I remember hearing from a person wanting that kind of thing seriously.

Or unsettling maybe? Laughter is a basic defensive reaction. Claiming offense is also the most default way of getting a point removed from debate. I don't intend any offense at all and I surely am not aiming at providing some fun.

I won't argue about the first one because it may actually be true, seeing how many conservative politicians are darned hypocrites, but the latter is obviously wrong.

Eh, liberalism is not about protecting the rights of abstract categories of victims, let alone minors, as it is about minimising the number of regulations. Personal rights, yes, but mostly in terms of non-interference by the state.

And does really a 14 year old have to be a victim in having sex with a 20 year old? Or is a 15 year old fully developed sexually, psychologically, physically, whatever? Whether you like this or not, this law is built on morals.

Someone who supported gay sex would be seen the same a hundred years ago and someone supporting premarital sex would be seen as not much better.

What kind of liberals? Surely not the economical liberals who realise free public transport would be paid from taxes which everyone pays, whereas not everyone uses public transport and people shouldn't pay for what they don't use. Free public transport is as socialist as hammer and sickle.

@joacqin:

That's a peculiar definition. However, you'd be surprised, but the opposition to premarital sex or gay sex or other such things is often built on the idea that those things harm people who engage in them, as well as harm the society in general.

@Felinoid:

Yeah, exactly.

@Drew:

Liberals or you? What is crime? Is crime something wrong or is crime what is banned? If the state banned gay sex and made it a crime, would liberals still never support crime and would they stop supporting gay rights? Hmm? If the state made it a crime for coloured people to go on the same train with whites, would liberals obediently go along? Whatever you mean by liberals, by crime etc.

Har har. What about early 19th century capitalism?

I could take offence at that if I followed that kind of debating method. Consensual sex by 20 year olds with 14 year olds is way better than rape. To say otherwise is to offend rape victims quite grossly, really. And personal freedom in this example is very much of a concern. Also, what about the rights of other persons in abortion? I've heard from liberals being pro-life on this ground, even libertarians, actually. But most would put the woman's whatever abstract imagined rights over the child's life just because pregnancy is such a hassle. So please spare me the fairy tales.

@Drew:

Are you the leader of liberals, press officer... or a witch with a crystal globe? You seem to have either the authority to represent them all or some unfailing source of absolute knowledge.

And who says victimisaiton or exploitation is a value in lowering the age of consent? People who want to lower the age of consent are calling upon personal freedoms, not upon wanting to exploit someone. Paedophilia exploits people, rampant capitalism exploits people, abortion exploits people...

@Felinoid:

Yeah.

@Drew:

Sorry, but you're the one pushing semantics to the extreme here. Well, apart from me, maybe. Semantics are quite important in making sure we're talking about the same thing, anyway. But in your case, they seem to be the tool of evading any sort of inconvenient argument from the opposing side.

@Drew:

You're reading more than I have written. You're seeing "all" somewhere, as well as you're missing the obvious fact the right wing wouldn't likely support any kind of stuff like that because it tends to be more conservative on the moral side.

All those "ridiculous", "offensive" and "very condescending" is what else than trying to offend me? I don't care, though, so you may as well drop it now. If you want to exercise your right to take offence, feel free to and I won't limit you in your personal rights. But offending people or providing funny diversion is the last thing I'm trying to achieve here.

If you're a 14 year old girl having a 20 year old boyfriend and want to sleep with him, doesn't the law limit your rights? What if some moron leaves his body to some other moron in last will as a sex toy? Doesn't abortion take away rights, as well? It's not as simple as you're trying to make it, because what matters in practice is the shifting balance of power and whose rights are seen as more important. There were liberals who believed abolishing slavery was thwarting slave owners' property rights.

@Gnarff:

Indeed. A lower penalty here, a lower one there... One year here, one year there. It's going to take time before zoophilia or paedophilia or necrophilia appears in courts in other forms than crime suspicion, but political campaigns are already starting. And yes, I've heard of initiatives to legalise necrophilia in the US. It was somewhere in the South-West IIRC, although I can't recall where exactly. In Poland, we've had some German Doctor Death who made "artistic" stuff out of corpses and wanted to locate the business in Poland.

Same here. It's always "just one step", but it there is always the next step. One per generation. Or two. But compare the beginning with the end. At some point perhaps people will finally try to stop the spiral and say no when personal rights go too far. But wonder if it won't be too late then.

I agree and I've been scared for some time.

Yeah. Separation of church, separation of morals, separation of whatever comes in the way. It's a matter of gaining enough support or other means of making one's non-standard desires legal.

Yes. I'm not saying the same persons will go the whole way, but eventually, over decades and generations, the process will continue and more and more deviations will gradually become perceived as non-deviations.

@Beren:

And not all of those kinds of liberalism are left-wing. When talking about lefties, I mean the more zealous advocates of abolishing legal limitations of human behaviour. In European circumstances, that would most often be socio-morally radical social democrats campaigning together with certain branches of radical feminists, pro-abortionits and other exotic groups.

Liberal != left. Some liberals are right-side. For example, morally permissive and economically conservative would likely be right-wing. Economical laissez-faire kind of views coupled with moral permissivism would also be right-wing. It takes radical moral permissivism to switch the balance on the left side. It may come with commie-style economical views (some such big universal commune, yadda yadda) or with totally rampant capitalist views verging on social Darwinism (everyone on his own etc). Only the latter case is really controversial because it should theoretically be on the right side, but the level of anarchism makes it quite lefty. Also, when you say "lefty", you don't mean just anyone with left-wing political views. Left-wing is more like Tony Blair or your typical moderate social-democrat. Lefties are the more quirky guys like the ones you see on the street or in the parliament, expressing vocal support for some more radical ideas.

@Saber:

Yeah, I won't deny that gay sex can be consensual, while animal or child not really. Still, what's more natural for a 20 year old guy? To sleep with a 60 year old guy or with a 14 year old girl? Are really minors so incapable of consenting or are we protecting them because of our moral ideas? Why don't we prevent teens from having sex with each other if it's about them not being ready for it? Why don't we ban it outright and set the age of consent on the same level as legal age? I don't think the current age of consent reflects full and final maturity, even on the physical level. What I'm trying to show you is that it's a matter of a certain compromise: how far we are ready to go and where do we want to draw the line.

Also, while in case of two male 20 year olds, consent is clearer, it's way more perverted than the 20 year old male and 14 year old female example.

Same for children, yeah. But I would say the same about babies being aborted, but many people would disagree with me, some even in case of babies who clearly feel pain.

What if they do? And defiling or respect are quite subjective philosophical ideas in the sense that not everyone will hold the same view. So people will claim they don't have a problem with it and they should be left alone, much like it was with homosexual sex, which is unnatural to most people, including some of those who still want it to be legal. The argument that it's sick and perverted won't hold.

As much as I agree it's sick, perverted and should be hospitalisation-warranting more than criminal.

There are small steps in between. Fraction of steps. A little relaxation here, a little narrowing of definition there.

Yeah, I know. None here, either. But there's a fine line between flaming and pointing some things out. I guess it won't matter much on the global scale, but some things just need to be called.

@Aikanaro:

There already many "topless rights for women" activists and in some places, it's been defined as normal and people see no discrepancy between a woman's happily jumping out of her bra (if only) on the beach and frowning on cleavage dives in a club or otherwise insisting on privacy.

Yet another thing which is matter of not-so-logically-definable feelings and tastes because whatever legal objection is there is based on morality or aesthetic sense.

 

Geez, is this about the new Dutch pedo-party or should I get a ruler?


You guys have probably said more about this topic (and other topics) than all the Dutch together ever will. We don't take this sort of crap seriously. There are lots of people here that yell extreme ideas; we just think they are pathetic and let them wither away into obscurity again after they are done.

First, pedophelia is wrong, and anybody who doesn't agree should get a brain check (which I’m sure we can all agree about)

Let me give everybody a brief course on Dutch politics: Every party in the Netherlands is likely to rule with a party with opposite ideas, meaning the middle road will always be taken. Even if two (or three) parties with similar ideas rule, they will be scared ****less to push their ideas and always will go with milder version of what they first suggested. But all in all, there is no chance in hell, the pedo-party will get seats in the Dutch parliament, because there just aren’t enough jackasses around to vote on them. We may be a tolerant country, but there is no way pedophilia will be supported. We may let people do a whole lot of things as long as it's between consentient adults, and hell we'll probably allow people to do even more things in the future, but there ain't no way people are gonna agree with taking away the innocence of a child.

And in the abysmally unlikely event they get enough votes to rule the country: their ideas are clearly what the people want, and hey, isn’t that the basis of a democracy: what the majority wants, not a few people who think they are correct. Which brings me to:

Lack of religion doesn’t mean lack of morals, and who defines what non-standard desires are? The church or the majority? I’m not saying the majority is always right, but the church isn’t either. In fact, both can be wrong, and both combined can be a dangerous combination who push their ideas onto others. If the majority thinks something is ok; then maybe it is. Pedophilia will never be ok in my opinion, so if the majority thinks it is, I guess I will become the conservative.

Chev, I may not always agree with you, but thank you for this.

 

Children are a protected treasure in Western societies. Frankly, I have a very hard time taking serious anyone who becries that they will be the next in line because of moral re-orientation on other, wholly unrelated topics. In my opinion nothing but fear-peddling by the selfproclaimed moralists and their morbid longing for social decay and, eventually, doomsday. There isnt even a hint for such a trend. To the contrary, protection of children's wholebeing has been steadily advanced over the centuries. As has been the case for *all* who need protection by (and from elements of) society. The reason why I think our societies are approaching a balanced state, rather then spinning toward apocalypse, as some would have it understood.

This matter is gross, but simple. Children are off limits. No one will stand for it. Save for some lefties, mind you. Oh, and the Roman Catholic Church, when covering up its pedophilic priests...

 

The idea that loosening restrictions on homosexuals will lead to allowing the wholesale exploitation of children is laughable. Homosexuals who have consensual sex with each other do so as equals, in both sound mind and body (at least as often as heterosexuals do). When two men choose to have sex on equal terms, no one is exploited. The same cannot be said for sex between a 12 year old girl and a 25 year old man. They are not even remotely close to being the same issue. And no, liberals or "lefties" are no more likely to make "concessions" regarding pedophilia than conservatives are to make concessions regarding segregation. NAMBLA's lobby hasn't won any "concessions" from the left yet and they've been around since 1978. If NAMBLA is going to win any concessions from the left I'm pretty sure they would have done so by now. It has been 30 years.....and the only "concessions" they've won have come in the form of 1st ammendment protection (in other words, they have gotten nothing). Liberals are about as likely to support NAMBLA as conservatives are to support the KKK. If assertions of "leftist" support of pedophilia continue, I'll be more than happy to start a thread about "rightist" support for the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or terror attacks on abortion clinics.

[ June 05, 2006, 02:38: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

The point that Chev and I have been making is that public perception and ultimately the law does change in directions that, sooner or later, will offend and outrage all of us.

History has shown that, as Chev has explained, such arguements that it won't deteriorate further are complete , and such deterioration is exactly what has happenned. The repulsion that some of you are expressing right now are the same as the ones expressed 35 years or so ago when people wanted homosexuality decriminalized. They said they wouldn't try to adopt or marry. That's exactly what happenned. You laughed when we said that soon pedophiles would want their desires decriminalized. Now there is a group trying that and bringing this to the public eye.

If a stand is not taken to absolutely halt such moral decline, then society is going to hell.

 

14 year olds may be able to, but having sex with them isn't pedophilia, it is statitory (sp) rape. Having sex with kids that are pre-pubescent or have mental issues (as in, kids whose bodies age faster than their minds) is pedophilia.

I think some teens are ready for it. If they are able to handle the responsibilities that come with it, I think they should be able to have sex.

So homosexuality is more perveted than rape? Yeah.... no.

Raping a dead body (the dead can't give consent) is not defilement?

What humane 'relaxation' can allow children to be taken advantage of? I disagree with you (and Gnarff) that the allowance of fornication and homosexuality leads to pedophilia. I may not have a strong argument besides thinking that humans can not deteriorate in morals that far, but your argument of "history repeats itself" isn't so great either.

Precisely. The only people who don't think so are pedophiles. 35 years ago, there were more people than just homosexuals that wanted homosexuality to be allowed. The strongly religious back then didn't like it, as they don't now. There are just fewer strongly religious now. Pedophilia is only accepted by pedophiles, and is not strongly backed enough to become legal.

Liberals like rights. Just (as in fair) rights. We believe there shouldn't be too many restrictions on rights. Pedophilia is not a right because it restricts the child's right to choice and innocence. Liberals won't support pedophilia because it restricts rights, not gives rights.

How?! You are asking me how pedophilia is different than homosexuality? Tell me how they are similar!
Homosexuality involves consent. It involves love. Pedophilia has no consent. It is not love, but a weird lust for pre-pubescent children. It involves taking advantage of children who most likely do not know what is going on. It scars the child for life, most likely ruining that child's life. By saying they are similar, you are dishonoring and disrespecting all homosexuals and all victims of pedophilia.

 

No. It has not. History has indicated no such things. Pedophilia and Homosexuality are nothing new and they are not even remotely related. Tolerating homosexuality is different than tolerating pedophilia for a gigantic reason. Pedophilia is exploitation snd homosexuality is not. I find it interesting that in our "degrading moral climate" violent crimes (including rape) have actually been declining. If two men have sex, no one gets hurt. If a man and a child have sex, the child gets hurt. That is a difference between the issues you can drive a Mac truck through 300 times, uphill, and in first gear.

The fallacy in your argument has a name. It's called a slippery slope. Put simply, it does not logically follow that accepting homosexuality will lead to accepting incest, pedophelia, or even movies starring Kevin Bacon. It does, however, logically follow that if we became more accepting of the existance of homosexual relationships, we are likely to become more accepting of other aspects of homosexual relationships like gay marriage, for example. Societal acceptance of gay relationships and gay marriage are related to each other. Societal acceptance of child porn and pedophilia, however, have nothing to do with homosexuality or gay rights issues. You can't logically connect homosexualty to pedophelia any more than you can logically connect speeding to murder.

[ June 05, 2006, 22:40: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I have to wonder, am I one of these demonic 'lefties' you guys keep bashing because I advocate lowering the age of consent? Just wondering...

 

I agree. If anything, there has been less support for the latter groups through time. As Dendri pointed out, treatment of children is better now than it was in the past. Animal rights groups also are a relatively recent phenomenon. I can't think of any examples of the rights for the dead offhand, but at least as far as children and animals go, there is less acceptance of harm to them now than ever before. I see a huge gap in the line of reasoning that as society becomes more accepting of one, it will eventually become more accepting of the other. If anything, the exact opposite appears to be true.

I know this is a bit but I have to ask - if socialism is considered clearly leftist, why wouldn't someone who was on the left support free public transportation?

 

The greater the extremes, the more people will pull towards the middle.

I think this generally holds true, with the exception of parties that have religious backing & undertones. They serve as a kind of yardstick by which everyone will measure and wish to define themselves as apart from.

The sad thing is that far right/left/regressive/wacko/paedo parties will always gain some degree of support as they invariably paint themselves as the champion of the underdog... just so long as that underdog looks and acts the same way they do.

In the UK noone expected the far right and arguably racist British National Party to gain any support. I believe they got a dozen or so seats in the most recent by-elections by again preaching to the 'underdog'. But only if that underdog wasn't black/asian/jewish/muslim/gay.

NOTE: I probably stole that first line from a film but i can't remember which.

 

But there ARE legal precidents in several nations that can be used to gwet activist judges on board. Even in the US, cases where there has been consenting sex between adult and minor 9what these people are fighting for), sentences have been jokes. In Canada, there has been supreme court challenges over the right to have Child pornography, citing freedom of expression. a little chip here, a little chip there, and you're sitting there wondering how they got their way while I'm there saying I told you so...

So you suggest that it IS possible that there would be enough voters sympathetic to these people that they may get some support? That's a nightmare...

 

I'd just like to pop in to say how excellent that position is. If what you're warning about happens, you're proven right. If it doesn't happen, you still get to be right because it's "only a matter of time" or "still on the way" or "getting there". There is almost no possible situation where you could be unarguably wrong, even against every evidence to the contrary.

To put it simply to the rest of you, you can't argue against "maybe" (AKA "it might happen"), so don't even bother trying. Gnarf and his ilk can never be proven wrong, no matter how wrong they may be.

 

Because it's a dumb idea - trains need maintenance, to pay the drivers/whatever. Sure, free transport would be nice, but with the current system and so on and so forth - probably a dumb idea...

Just because something is considered 'leftist' doesn't mean that everyone who is one the left is going to support it.
Indeed, chances are that by saying something is 'leftist' you're making a horribly broad generalisation. Seeing that a rather large portion of the left hates the hammer-and-sickle style of 'left'...

 

I simply have to point out that the formation of this party and the legitimicy behind it ( the fact that they can legally form ) is both a testament to the notion of free speech and its greatest flaw.

What we are experiencing here is the greatest problem with democracy, the vote of an utter lunatic is given the same value of an expert economist with society's best interests at heart.