Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html?gusrc=rss

The Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country yesterday when a new political party formed by paedophiles was told it could contest this year's general election.

A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court in The Hague said in a statement.

Article continues
The court declared that curbs on freedom of expression could only be applied where public order is at risk. "They only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party. It is up to the voter to give a judgment on the arguments of political parties," Judge H Hofhuis was quoted by the Dutch news agency ANP as telling the court.

The ruling will be seen as a powerful example of the Netherlands' liberal approach to social issues. The country has famously relaxed views on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage.

The paedophile party will be free to stand in November's general election if it meets the usual requirements of submitting a list of candidates and providing the signatures of at least 500 supporters.

The court's decision angered the anti-paedophile campaign group Solace, which brought the case, and whose views appear to be widely reflected in Dutch society.

No Kidding, a group campaigning for children's rights, called on the Dutch government to act against the party. "Dutch citizens must make their voices heard if we do not want to sacrifice our children to paedophile interests," it said.

The new party, which was formed in May, pledged to intensify its campaign to remove the taboo on paedophilia which, it claims, has worsened in the past decade after the arrest of the notorious Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux. In his most notorious crime, Dutroux kidnapped and imprisoned two young girls and starved them to death.

Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the chairman of the new party, was quoted by ANP as saying: "We expected to win. We are not doing anything criminal so why should you ban the PNVD?"

The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.

Such ideas have proved too much for 82% of the Dutch population, who want the government to outlaw the party according to a recent opinion poll. Publicity for the party last month provoked such a backlash that one of its founders had to flee a caravan park after receiving threats.

The reaction against the new party comes at a sensitive moment in Dutch history. The difficulty of integrating many members of the country's Muslim population has prompted even mainstream politicians to call for immigrants to be denied citizenship if they do not accept the country's liberal values.

Rita Verdonk, the country's immigration minister, recently caused controversy by saying that aspiring Dutch citizens should be shown a DVD highlighting Dutch liberal values. Muslims complained that this was targeted against them because it featured a gay couple kissing.

The general election was called after the coalition government collapsed in a row linked to the debate on Muslims. The small centre-right D66 party withdrew from the coalition after Ms Verdonk stripped Dutch citizenship from (and then restored it to) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former MP who is one of the country's sharpest critics of radical Islamists and is now to emigrate to the US.

Originally posted by eggmayo


Everyone should have the right to give their bodies to the person who they are in love with. To deny a person the right to not use their body in the way they want to is to deny that person of their self existence.

A good decision in my opinion. Free elections should mean free elections...and at least in the Netherlands it seems they do.

What is the point on having a pedophile political party anyways?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Arcana
What is the point on having a pedophile political party anyways?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

To vote for it to make paedophilia acceptable?

Originally posted by Bardock42
To vote for it to make paedophilia acceptable?

I suppose... but it still seems... weird.


http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Arcana
I suppose... but it still seems... weird.


http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Yeah, I guess it does, but also very free.

Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Originally posted by Arcana
Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

Possibly. Sad though.

Originally posted by Arcana
Heh if anyone tried to get that passed over here in the USA... there would be riots.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png
Thank goodness.

And thank goodness people in the Netherlands are opposed to it.

Yes, yes, I know, Constitutional rights, freedom of whatever. I'm the bad man for opposing it. Frankly, I don't care. To lower the age of consent to 12 years old and to legalise child pornography is too much. Even one of those is too much.

Don't you want to leave it to the voters rather thsan the mob to say that, though, Feceman?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't you want to leave it to the voters rather thsan the mob to say that, though, Feceman?
Well, no. There are some things that I would gladly leave to voters. Something such as this...I could not in good conscience agree to leave it to the voters (were there a chance of it passing, that is).

Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?
I believe in democracy. Just like I believe in superstition. Do I trust democracy to do what is right?

Now that is the question you should be asking.

No it isn't. The question I should be asking is whether you believe modern countries should be democracies or not.

Your call there to reject people's democratic right to choose a party is tantamount to totalitarianism and is completely at odds with any moral political system. It is not for you- or indeed, anyone- to make comment on what is 'right' for the people of a democracy to do other than to elect Governments. You can then judge whether the Government is right or wrong, but the first principle is that it is democratically chosen without bar or restraint. And if you want a system where there are such restraints, than you are delusional to say that you believe in democracy.

Let this silly party be punished at the polls. That is many orders of magnitude more sensible than banning it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ah, so you don't belive in democracy?

Democracy means.."way of the people."

Whatever laws people agree to in a democracy, then that means those are the laws that should be used.

Majority rules in a democracy, so it doesn't matter what the minority thinks as much.

People who are "paedophiles" should have the right to express their beliefs, and act on them if the laws allow them to.

The children who get to have sex with the adults after after laws have been passed removing consensual age limit for sex, will have to wait until they are old enough to form a party to express their beliefs in the politicol system, because they are not mature enough to be able to make decisions regarding the laws.

No, the majority does not rule in a Democracy. The majority simply chooses who rules. It is different.

We aren't talking about a referendum here. We are talking about political election.

Hmmm. Free speech in action. I guess, that as long as they are not doing anything illegal, they have every right to express their beliefs - after all, it is only a crime to act.

And I think it could be good, I can just imagine the look on the pedophile parties face come election night when they find out that, beyond their own party, virtually nobody voted for them. That should wake them up.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, the majority does not rule in a Democracy. The majority simply chooses who rules. It is different.

We aren't talking about a referendum here. We are talking about political election.

Yes it does, what do you think happens in a popular election in the states, the presidential candidate who gets a majority of the vote in each state gets all of the votes of the electoral college in the state that they've won the popular vote in.

Anyway, as i said before, children are too young to make politicol decisions, so that's why the adults need to make those decisions for them. If it is determined by the law that the consensual age limit to have sex should be abolished, then the children will have to express their beliefs on the matter when they (edit) become mature adults, and they can vote on legislation that reinstates this consensual age limit.

I suppose you are right, Ushgarak.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Yes it does, what do you think happens in a popular election in the states, the presidential candidate who gets a majority of the vote in each state gets all of the votes of the electoral college in the state that they've won the popular vote in.

Anyway, as i said before, children are too young to make politicol decisions, so that's why the adults need to make those decisions for them. If it is determined by the law that the consensual age limit to have sex should be abolished, then the children will have to express their beliefs on the matter when they (edit) become mature adults, and they can vote on legislation that reinstates this consensual age limit.
Ahem. I'm a child, and I think it would be a VERY bad idea for any country to be ran by a party that supported paedophilia, child pornography, and beastiality.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Yes it does, what do you think happens in a popular election in the states, the presidential candidate who gets a majority of the vote in each state gets all of the votes of the electoral college in the state that they've won the popular vote in.

The president is not the entire government. And it is why you have a two party (or more) system.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I suppose you are right, Ushgarak.

Yeah he's right. Free speech should be allowed for those who are of age and who are mature enough to participate in politics.

Children do not have the right to say anything they want in polotics, because they are considered minors and not mature enough. So that's why the adults in power represent their views.

Like most girls, i had a hard time finding 13 and 14 year old boys who are mature around my age, so I think this law will help bring people like myself together with people like Mr. Ushgarak & Bardock who support freedom of letting young people express their sexual selves more freely.

Originally posted by eggmayo
Ahem. I'm a child, and I think it would be a VERY bad idea for any country to be ran by a party that supported paedophilia, child pornography, and beastiality.

When you get old enough to vote, then you can voice your opinion..but right now, you are not mature enough to understand the issue.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Yeah he's right. Free speech should be allowed for those who are of age and who are mature enough to participate in politics.

Children do not have the right to say anything they want in polotics, because they are considered minors and not mature enough. So that's why the adults in power represent their views.

Like most girls, i had a hard time finding 13 and 14 year old boys who are mature around my age, so I think this law will help bring people like myself together with people like Mr. Ushgarak & Bardock who support freedom of letting young people express their sexual selves more freely.
I agree with that, but 12 is too young. This also opens up the possibility of older men having sex with 12 year old girls, legally. If a twelve year old isnt mature enough to make political decisions, are they mature enough to have sex?

In fact, is it actually possible at that age?

AND.

I'll have you know I understand the issue just fine, I just disagree with it.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I agree with that, but 12 is too young. This also opens up the possibility of older men having sex with 12 year old girls, legally. If a twelve year old isnt mature enough to make political decisions, are they mature enough to have sex?

In fact, is it actually possible at that age?

AND.

I'll have you know I understand the issue just fine, I just disagree with it.

12 may be too young for some people, but not for all people. Girls mature a lot earlier than boys. I had my period when I was 8, and i was very mature for my age at 9, when i lost my virginity. I am 13 now, and am engaged to a wonderful 32 year old man. I realise now that people mature differently, and I cant force my personal values on others. But even though I have the freedom to do what I want with my body, I realize that it takes much more maturity to understand the law and politicol system. I need to go to school and study some more and experience life, before I am ready to make informed decisions about what laws are fair, and what laws are harmful for the well being of young people of my age group.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Yeah he's right. Free speech should be allowed for those who are of age and who are mature enough to participate in politics.

Children do not have the right to say anything they want in polotics, because they are considered minors and not mature enough. So that's why the adults in power represent their views.

Like most girls, i had a hard time finding 13 and 14 year old boys who are mature around my age, so I think this law will help bring people like myself together with people like Mr. Ushgarak & Bardock who support freedom of letting young people express their sexual selves more freely.

Oh do stop it. And stop making out they have already won the election. They will be soundly defeated. Soundly defeated with flying colors. If some of the other political parties over there, that actually do have a valid policy, can barely get any votes, there is no way this one will end up running the country.

What we should expect in the future !? The rapers party, the terrorist party, or the murderers party ???

someone asked whats the point in letting them run....
but it fascnates that people fear such a political party,
and would risk so much to prevent it.

to feel that there is a chance of them gaining representation
in government exhibits a complete lack of trust for one's own fellow
citizens....as a whole. so i ask, whats the point in banning them?
whats the point in allowing a democracy to directly contradict itself,
and open up the door for other parties to be forbidden? why risk
freedom over a group of crackpots who will never be elected?

all i know is if this happened in america, and the party was banned, i would probably have to take the next plane to canada, since any sense of community at home would be nonexistant....and the real question begged: why bother living in your country/home when you're convinced that a majority of your fellow citizens think that a party focusing on the molestation of children would be a good idea.

honestly, i was joking about the 'plane to canada' bit, but i assure you if i actually had such a paranoid state of mind, convinced that im surrounded by kiddie fondlers... i would bolt out of this country so fast, heads would spin.

What the F**k! I think we should burn them...if you have a little sister or brother and one of those guys tries to do something nasty to her or him...wouldn't you want to kill him? Well I would!

Originally posted by PVS
to feel that there is a chance of them gaining representation
in government exhibits a complete lack of trust for one's own fellow
citizens....as a whole.

all i know is if this happened in america, and the party was banned, i would probably have to take the next plane to canada, since any sense of community at home would be nonexistant....and the real question begged: why bother living in your country/home when you're convinced that a majority of your fellow citizens think that a party focusing on the molestation of children would be a good idea.

Exactly. As I said before it would be better to let them run, as a solid defeat in an election would speak much more positively then banning them, an act which would likely open all sorts of can o' worms.

Originally posted by SagisuShiro
What the F**k! I think we should burn them...if you have a little sister or brother and one of those guys tries to do something nasty to her or him...wouldn't you want to kill him? Well I would!

you forgot & quot;!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111"

Originally posted by Bardock42
A good decision in my opinion. Free elections should mean free elections...and at least in the Netherlands it seems they do.

You don't think they're just making a point? Do you think this party can gather enough signatures from supporters to be elligible for election? I hope not, but if they do and proceed to stand for election then perhaps it's hoped that they'll end up with such a low percentage of the vote that it'll publicly prove that the majority of voters, aka the public, have their morality screwed on correctly.

i'm sure they'll get their 500 signatures and i'm sure they'll get some votes but i'm also sure that more then enough people think that the idea of telling a 12 year old they are of sound enough mind to have sex is a totally different thing. they'd be lucky to get 2% of the populations vote, because as we know (and see here) the majority of people think that the idea of pedophilia is wrong.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Exactly. As I said before it would be better to let them run, as a solid defeat in an election would speak much more positively then banning them, an act which would likely open all sorts of can o' worms.

i completely agree there too, if you throw down a ban on a political party because they're policy's are so radical, there will be freedom of speech lawsuits flying all over the place, if the idea is so radical and socially unacceptable, then the public will speak with their votes. if they lose because no one voted for them, stiff shit, thats the game they played, if Parliament slaps a ban on them then it'll just be a long term shit fight.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
12 may be too young for some people, but not for all people. Girls mature a lot earlier than boys. I had my period when I was 8, and i was very mature for my age at 9, when i lost my virginity. I am 13 now, and am engaged to a wonderful 32 year old man. I realise now that people mature differently, and I cant force my personal values on others. But even though I have the freedom to do what I want with my body, I realize that it takes much more maturity to understand the law and politicol system. I need to go to school and study some more and experience life, before I am ready to make informed decisions about what laws are fair, and what laws are harmful for the well being of young people of my age group.

i understand what your saying but do you think making EVERY child's legal age for sex is a good thing? a 12 year old child who is generally wouldn't be at an age where they wanted to have sex could still be convinced by an older person they were "in love" and that this is what people who were "in love" do. i'm not saying you personally aren't in love but that as you said, you are an unusual case. you matured early. why leave all the other children who didn't out in the cold and venerable to these people because in a tiny number of cases some people matured faster? i'm sure you can, if you are as mature as you say you are, wait until you are of a legal age to consummate your relationship with your partner (although as you have revealed you lost your virginity at 9 it seems irrelevant to wait now). indeed going to school and learning more about the law would be an obvious advantage but i still think that the laws regarding pedophiles should stand.

Originally posted by Syren
You don't think they're just making a point? Do you think this party can gather enough signatures from supporters to be elligible for election? I hope not, but if they do and proceed to stand for election then perhaps it's hoped that they'll end up with such a low percentage of the vote that it'll publicly prove that the majority of voters, aka the public, have their morality screwed on correctly.

That was in no way my point. For whatever reason they do it, I don't care, this thread is not about the Party (like the other one) but about the (very good) decision of Holland there.

At least everyone knows who these peodophiles are and can take action against them.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
At least everyone knows who these peodophiles are and can take action against them.

What action are you talking about? If you mean not voting for them I am all with you.

I can't help but think his taking action would probably have more to do with classical ways of dealing with undesirables like lynching.

Technically autumn dreams they haven't actually done anything wrong (at least I am guess they haven't) other then expressing an undesirable change to age of consent law. Nothing really criminal about it, and technically their right.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Children do not have the right to say anything they want in polotics, because they are considered minors and not mature enough. So that's why the adults in power represent their views.

And yet its perfectly ok to have a vote on whether the consensual age limit for sex should be lowered, allow pornography to be aired during daytime, and allow beastiality, but hey, dont worry about even thinking about minors cause they're not mature enough What a ridiculous argument you are presenting.

Originally posted by billyjoebobsue
Like most girls, i had a hard time finding 13 and 14 year old boys who are mature around my age, so I think this law will help bring people like myself together with people like Mr. Ushgarak & Bardock who support freedom of letting young people express their sexual selves more freely.

Mature boys at 13? HA! And why would you even be looking for a boyfriend at that age? Just cause your periods started early, doesnt mean you're mature

Im hoping that account was a whob sock, cause there are so many disturbing things in your posts.

Originally posted by Thread starter
The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.


This is my only problem.

I do not think allowing child pornography on daytime television is a great idea. I am okay with allowing a Peadophile party, i mean even neo nazis and KKK had the right to voice thier opinions, hence so should peadophiles.

However, I think they are pushing it here, because they are asking for MORE than just a say in the way things are run. They want violent child porn to be shown on television? They also want to have sex with animals?

I am okay with allowing a 16 year old in porn, i mean I was a fkn hornball at 16, and by this age when you have your libido, and you WANT to do something, it is not a crime to allow you to explore and have your harmless fun.

However, below age 12 to be on porn is ABSURD ! An 11 year old and under are still too young and not mature enough to handle this kind of deal. I also am against the sexual encounters with animals, FIRST OF ALL, SINCE WHEN do peadophiles want to have sex with animals? I thought that was bestiality....

SEcondly, forcing an animal to have sex with a human is a form of Rape. The Animal has NO SAY in the matter.....a sixteen year old teenager has a definate SAY and definate consent, but a fkn ANIMAL? The animal can't say no....it is totally unfair and abusive to subject an animal to this kind of bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I guess it does, but also very free.

and...dare i say it...democratic......

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
and...dare i say it...democratic......

Indeed. Very Democratic.

Originally posted by eggmayo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html?gusrc=rss

The Netherlands cemented its reputation as Europe's most socially liberal country yesterday when a new political party formed by paedophiles was told it could contest this year's general election.

A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalise child pornography. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court in The Hague said in a statement.

Article continues
The court declared that curbs on freedom of expression could only be applied where public order is at risk. "They only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party. It is up to the voter to give a judgment on the arguments of political parties," Judge H Hofhuis was quoted by the Dutch news agency ANP as telling the court.

The ruling will be seen as a powerful example of the Netherlands' liberal approach to social issues. The country has famously relaxed views on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage.

The paedophile party will be free to stand in November's general election if it meets the usual requirements of submitting a list of candidates and providing the signatures of at least 500 supporters.

The court's decision angered the anti-paedophile campaign group Solace, which brought the case, and whose views appear to be widely reflected in Dutch society.

No Kidding, a group campaigning for children's rights, called on the Dutch government to act against the party. "Dutch citizens must make their voices heard if we do not want to sacrifice our children to paedophile interests," it said.

The new party, which was formed in May, pledged to intensify its campaign to remove the taboo on paedophilia which, it claims, has worsened in the past decade after the arrest of the notorious Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux. In his most notorious crime, Dutroux kidnapped and imprisoned two young girls and starved them to death.

Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the chairman of the new party, was quoted by ANP as saying: "We expected to win. We are not doing anything criminal so why should you ban the PNVD?"

The new party wants to legalise the possession of child pornography and to allow pornography to be shown on daytime television. Violent pornography would be allowed after the evening watershed, young children would receive sex education and youths over the age of 16 would be allowed to appear in pornographic films. Sex with animals would also be allowed by the party, although abuse of animals would remain illegal.

Such ideas have proved too much for 82% of the Dutch population, who want the government to outlaw the party according to a recent opinion poll. Publicity for the party last month provoked such a backlash that one of its founders had to flee a caravan park after receiving threats.

The reaction against the new party comes at a sensitive moment in Dutch history. The difficulty of integrating many members of the country's Muslim population has prompted even mainstream politicians to call for immigrants to be denied citizenship if they do not accept the country's liberal values.

Rita Verdonk, the country's immigration minister, recently caused controversy by saying that aspiring Dutch citizens should be shown a DVD highlighting Dutch liberal values. Muslims complained that this was targeted against them because it featured a gay couple kissing.

The general election was called after the coalition government collapsed in a row linked to the debate on Muslims. The small centre-right D66 party withdrew from the coalition after Ms Verdonk stripped Dutch citizenship from (and then restored it to) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former MP who is one of the country's sharpest critics of radical Islamists and is now to emigrate to the US.


I can't ****ing believe this liberal bullshit. America should invade the Netherlands, not some toilet country in the desert. I didn't read the part about the Muslims, I was talking about the pedophiles. They should all be shot, and so should anyone who supports them. Oh, and go burn in Hell like you deserve, billyjoebobsue.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I can't ****ing believe this liberal bullshit. America should invade the Netherlands, not some toilet country in the desert. I didn't read the part about the Muslims, I was talking about the pedophiles. They should all be shot, and so should anyone who supports them. Oh, and go burn in Hell like you deserve, billyjoebobsue.

Yes, that would work great guns. Instead of invading dictatorships with the intention of spreading "democracy" you'd like to invade actual democratic nations that understand the meaning of the word and defend it and allow it to work, along with things like free speach.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, that would work great guns. Instead of invading dictatorships with the intention of spreading "democracy" you'd like to invade actual democratic nations that understand the meaning of the word and defend it and allow it to work, along with things like free speach.


That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You're embarassing yourself, Nogood. How many people in this thread have said they wanted the peds to win any elections?

Has anyone in this thread suggested that that would be a good thing?

And yet you're throwing a temper tantrum and talking about how letting people you don't like form their own part should be grounds for invasion.

Oh look, you think tollerence is bullshit. Well there's a shocker.

Originally posted by Gregory
You're embarassing yourself, Nogood. How many people in this thread have said they wanted the peds to win any elections?

Has anyone in this thread suggested that that would be a good thing?

Agreed, but can you blame him? We're talking about pedophiles here. What's next, a murdering rapist party?

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, but can you blame him? We're talking about pedophiles here. What's next, a murdering rapist party?


Finally, someone with logic (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic, which I can't tell because there's no way to denote tone of voice with typed words).

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Finally, someone with logic (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic, which I can't tell because there's no way to denote tone of voice with typed words).

I wasn't being sarcastic in reference to you... You were embarrassing yourself with your tone and some of the things you said i.e. "America should invade". But having said that, I think your heart was in the right place. Just my own personal opinion, but pedophiles deserve no mercy.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Have you read the rest of the thread? The things others have said? It is all far more useful then your bombastic shouting on the subject of right and wrong.

Do so and answer the following: Who has sympathised with them?

Who has agreed with them (other then the sock of a banned member?)

Who has said "yeah, that sounds good!"?

You will find, other then the sock that no one has. My point this is democracy, and this is freedom of speech. They have a Right to express their view. And at the moment that is all they are doing - not breaking any laws. If they get the party together they will be defeated in the election. In a major way. Such a thing is infinitely more revealing then slapping a ban on them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, but can you blame him? We're talking about pedophiles here. What's next, a murdering rapist party?

I don't blame him for being disgusted, no. On the other hand, if murdering rapists wanted to star their own party, so what? They'll get their name on the ballot, be the subject of widespread ridicule, and go down in flames every election (in America, they wouldn't even garner one electral vote; not sure how the Netherlands handles elections).

It would set a very bad precedent if the government was allowed to decide that because they thought some goupd had abhorent views, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the democratic process.

Here's a update on this situation straight from country in question itself.

As said, but let me remind you; the court has rejected the multiple requests to deny this party's right of existence based on freedom of speech and the right to vote for the chancing of laws. Furthermore the court believes that the party is not promoting, or participating in, illegal activities as of yet and are only voting the desires of a certain group.
This decision went against the wish of a vast majority in the Netherlands, but it is juridically correct.

As also mentioned;
Within the first days of going public, this party has been rejected through petitions, polls, and lawsuits by over 80% of the Dutch population, with the other 20% most likely feeling just the same but not taking the afford to express that.

As officially legal, the PNVD has been preparing for the upcoming 2nd chamber elections, in which they expect to win 1 chair (out of the 150 it holds).
The parties wanting to take part must register 43 days before the elections, supplying a list of at least 30 candidates. Parties that do not have any sitting candidates in the chamber must also pay a deposit of 11.250 euro and provide 30 signatures of support from residents of each of the 19 electoral districts in which they want to collect votes.
That's 570 signatures and the PNVD is still struggling to obtain them, latest reports indicate that they gained a few dozen in 4 months with less than 3 months to go before the next elections.
Their party also only has about 7 official members, nowhere near the required 30 candidates.

The PNVD has no notable financial recourses, their main office is a caravan for god's sake! It is unlikely that they will be able to pay the required deposit. And the fact that their chairman got fired from his job in a hospital because of his sexual preference isn't exactly helping out.

Then it is obvious that even if they make it to the elections, they will never get a number of votes worth mentionable and will bite the dust.

Then there is the tragic tendency of political extremists getting murdered around here lately, and with the death-threats addressed to the PNVD, they might never see the elections at all... Not that I would approve of this, but I wouldn't shed a tear over it either....

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

While I agree with you that some of thier demands are extreme, absurd, and only self-serving, they still have the right to a voice.

Would I ever legalize child porn? Not really....to me a child is only a child before adolescence.

If a 13 or 14 year old want to have sex, or even want to do pornography, it's thier choice. However, most 10 year olds and under don't even know what sex is, much less develop a means for consent...i would probably limit it there......

Now to call a peadophile an "animal" is just as rediculous as some of the demands they are making. Do you know any peadophiles? Do you even know the difference between a peadophile and a child rapist ?

"Sense of right and wrong" is irrelevant, since every one's sense of right and wrong is different. Diverse morality is the only morality that truly exists, there is no uniform morality, so you need to get that notion out of your head.


This is how I see it.....if a young teenager wants to have sex with an adult...its thier choice, and seeing how consent was given, the adult does not commit rape in this situation.

However, if an adult forces himself or herself onto a youth without consent, or on a youth who is so young they don't even have the concept of sex in their minds yet......then, and only then, is it truly rape and truly subject to judgement and punishment.

Consent means nothing. A child is a child, regardless, and an adult is an adult, regardless.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Consent means nothing. A child is a child, regardless, and an adult is an adult, regardless.

Consent means Everything. Consent is what separates sex from rape.

What you are saying is just an opinion formed from tradition and bias.

Thirteen? Jesus. Maybe in Urizen World (which appears to be just to the left of Bizzaro World), children immediately become responsible adults after puberty, but here in the real world, a child who has just undergone puberty is still a child.

(The question isn't whether the kid says yes; the question is whether some kid whose entire sexual knowledge consists of an awkward lecture from his parents and three weeks of sex-ed in Junior High is capable of giving intelligent consent.)

Originally posted by Gregory
Thirteen? Jesus. Maybe in Urizen World (which appears to be just to the left of Bizzaro World), children immediately become responsible adults after puberty, but here in the real world, a child who has just undergone puberty is still a child.

So a 16 year old is still a child ?

There are no horny 13 or 14 year olds ?

You're telling me that 13 and 14 year olds don't wanna have sex ?

Give me a break....what world do u live in ? A true child is one who is naive, immature, underdeveloped, and who has no sense of adult qualities, sex being one of them. When a so called child develops the desire to have sex and the ability to give consent, they are no longer a "real child".

There is a difference between a teenager and a child dumbass.

Yes; there is a difference between a child and a teenager. The difference is approxomitely a second. On the one hand we have a twelve-year old just short of her thirteenth birthday. She's just a child, incapable of consenting to sex. The day plods on. Fifteen hours until her birthday ... twelve ... she goes to bed ... and when she wakes up, thirteen years old, she has magically transformed into a sexual creature creature who desperately wants sex. When did that magical transformation occur? At midnight, I suppose. One second ... a child. The next second ... a cock-hungry teenager. Because there's a differenmce between a child and a teenager! Sure there is.

Originally posted by Gregory
Yes; there is a difference between a child and a teenager. The difference is approxomitely a second. On the one hand we have a twelve-year old just short of her thirteenth birthday. She's just a child, incapable of consenting to sex. The day plods on. Fifteen hours until her birthday ... twelve ... she goes to bed ... and when she wakes up, thirteen years old, she has magically transformed into a sexual creature creature who desperately wants sex. When did that magical transformation occur? At midnight, I suppose. One second ... a child. The next second ... a cock-hungry teenager. Because there's a differenmce between a child and a teenager! Sure there is.

Everyone reaches a sexual peak at a different age....putting out 12 or 13 are just generalizations.....

Ofcourse there is a transition, but ultamately it doesn't matter....teenagers are not children. According to your logic, once a person reaches 19, they turn automatically from "child" to "adult". That's absurd.

On the other hand....would you say that an 8 year old and a 16 year old are both children? Are they both the same ?

I think the argument would be better if you would explain to me what you define as "child" and what you define as "teenager". If you don't see the difference, then you are blind.

A "teenager" is, by definition, anyone thirteen or up. I would tend to say that anyone fourteen or younger is a child. Of course, there's a difference between an eight-year-old and a fourteen-year-old; one is a young child, the other is an old child.

I would tend to say that when you're about fifteen or sixteen, you can start being sexually active without screwing youself up, ideally with other people of the same age. I'm sure you're right in saying that there are people younger then that who want to have sex, but so what? Most thirteen year olds would probably also love to drive down the highway at 150mph; part of being a responsible adult is not letting kids do things that will mess them up, no matter how much they want to.

Originally posted by Gregory
A "teenager" is, by definition, anyone thirteen or up. I would tend to say that anyone fourteen or younger is a child. Of course, there's a difference between an eight-year-old and a fourteen-year-old; one is a young child, the other is an old child.

I would tend to say that when you're about fifteen or sixteen, you can start being sexually active without screwing youself up, ideally with other people of the same age. I'm sure you're right in saying that there are people younger then that who want to have sex, but so what? Most thirteen year olds would probably also love to drive down the highway at 150mph; part of being a responsible adult is not letting kids do things that will mess them up, no matter how much they want to.


There is where the argument lies.....when is a child no longer a child, when does a teenager become more like an adult, etc?

It's different for everyone. There are some 16 year olds who are not ready to have sex. There are some 14 year olds who pretty much can handle it. I know a girl who got 3 abortions when she was 14 (not saying that's a good thing), but she's "way to mature for her age"..she sure as hell aint a "child" ne more.....

I agree with you that it is up to the parents. A parent has every right to forbid thier young child or teenager from becoming sexually active, and doing porn (lol), but ultamately that is between child and parent, not child and government.

All I am saying is that there is a major difference between peadophilia and child molestation (or child rape). Rape and Molestation are ONLY SO when they lack consent. That simple. If CONSENT exists...it is NOT RAPE.....


A child who has no sexual desire CANNOT give consent to sex, therefore THAT WOULD BE RAPE.....and most children who are of age 10 or around there do not possess sexual desire yet.

Otherwise, yes. If a young teenager WANTS to have sex with an adult, or do porn, I don't see how the government has the right to forbid that. As long as the sex is safe, consentual, and enjoyable there is no harm in it. And again...there is no fkn way you can compare doing pornography to driving down a highway at 150MPH...that's a fkn absurd , over the top-ultra , conservative bullshit comparision.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Consent means Everything. Consent is what separates sex from rape.

What you are saying is just an opinion formed from tradition and bias.


No, I'm speaking logically. These are PEDOPHILES we're talking about, not some opressed, innocent, helpless minority.

NGNL, are you from Louisiana or something?

Originally posted by Gregory
I don't blame him for being disgusted, no. On the other hand, if murdering rapists wanted to star their own party, so what? They'll get their name on the ballot, be the subject of widespread ridicule, and go down in flames every election (in America, they wouldn't even garner one electral vote; not sure how the Netherlands handles elections).

It would set a very bad precedent if the government was allowed to decide that because they thought some goupd had abhorent views, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the democratic process.

We are talking about illegal views (among other things), not just bad ideas that some people find abhorent.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Consent means Everything. Consent is what separates sex from rape.

What you are saying is just an opinion formed from tradition and bias.

So in your mind a 14 year old could consent to having sex with a 50 year old and that would be ok?

What the **** is wrong with you all? Where the Hell did you get the idea that this is somehow about freedom of speech instead of having some sort of human concept of morality? What the Hell happened? Has the world gone mad?! I'm talking about a bunch of sickos who hurt kids in the worst possible way and they want to get away with it and you start acting like I'm some kind of redneck. I hope you enjoy your stay in Hell.

Originally posted by Robtard
So in your mind a 14 year old could consent to having sex with a 50 year old and that would be ok?

Although I find it personally disgusting, the answer is yes....

If there is consent, then it is NOT RAPE....

Is it a fair relationship, however? No....when one is older, they always have the mental advantage. There are OTHER ISSUES at hand here....however, it is not rape.

As for asking me "is it okay"...what is okay and not okay is all subjective, and irrelevant in this debate.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
What the **** is wrong with you all?

Now now...no need for hostility....



Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Where the Hell did you get the idea that this is somehow about freedom of speech instead of having some sort of human concept of morality? What the Hell happened?


It IS about Freedom of Speech. I do not agree with many of thier demands, but I defend thier right to speak out.

If Nazis can speak out, if Anti-Gay Christians can speak out, then so can peadophiles. There is nothing wrong with having a say.


Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Has the world gone mad?!

No. Sex between adult and teenager has existed for thousands of years. If the world has "gone mad" it happened thousands of years ago.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I'm talking about a bunch of sickos who hurt kids in the worst possible way and they want to get away with it and you start acting like I'm some kind of redneck.

1) Stop acting like a redneck, we'll stop calling you one.

2) Not all peadophiles are "sickos who hurt kids"....child rapists hurt kids...not all peadophiles hurt kids.

Did the 30 year old teacher who had sex with that 12 year old student "hurt him"? GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK !!! He was happy as hell, and there together NOW with children.....

There are many teenagers and adults all over the world, throughout all of history, that had have sexual relationships....open your eyes.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
I hope you enjoy your stay in Hell.

The typical redneck response....

There is no Hell...get over it.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
No, I'm speaking logically. These are PEDOPHILES we're talking about, not some opressed, innocent, helpless minority.

Not all Peadophiles are "child rapists" as you would like us all to beleive. There is a difference.

Until you can separate the two, no one will take your argument seriously.

Originally posted by Robtard
We are talking about illegal views (among other things), not just bad ideas that some people find abhorent.

"Illegal views"? It is not illegal to hold the view that the age of consent should be lowered. "Illegal views" are generally something that is not the arena of the police. It is illegal acts. These people can say they think the age of consent should be dropped just like Neo-Nazis can go on about Jews and the like - it is only when it crosses over into illegal acts, or language that incites or invites illegal acts that things get illegal.



Thank you Mr. "I am not a Christian." I'll be sure to look around for you down there, as I doubt you'll escape fictional damnation either.

As to the question - no, I think age of consent is fine where it is. In fact I think it could be a year or two higher. Of course it isn't doing as much. There is a sharp rise in sexual activity from the age of thirteen up amongst teens. They are experimenting and acting at younger ages. This does not mean the laws should be changed. Greater education is needed. Not shutting down the subject with screams of "morality!"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Now now...no need for hostility....






It IS about Freedom of Speech. I do not agree with many of thier demands, but I defend thier right to speak out.

If Nazis can speak out, if Anti-Gay Christians can speak out, then so can peadophiles. There is nothing wrong with having a say.




No. Sex between adult and teenager has existed for thousands of years. If the world has "gone mad" it happened thousands of years ago.



1) Stop acting like a redneck, we'll stop calling you one.

2) Not all peadophiles are "sickos who hurt kids"....child rapists hurt kids...not all peadophiles hurt kids.

Did the 30 year old teacher who had sex with that 12 year old student "hurt him"? GIVE ME A F*CKING BREAK !!! He was happy as hell, and there together NOW with children.....

There are many teenagers and adults all over the world, throughout all of history, that had have sexual relationships....open your eyes.



The typical redneck response....

There is no Hell...get over it.


That's it. I'm not putting anything else in this thread. If you're this warped of mind, then there's nothing I can do. The teacher is 30, the kid is a minor. But I guess that to a freak like you, that's just not important. Pedophiles are monsters, but there's no way to convince that to somone with such an evil liberal mindset. So enjoy your stay in Hell.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"Illegal views"? It is not illegal to hold the view that the age of consent should be lowered. "Illegal views" are generally something that is not the arena of the police. It is illegal acts. These people can say they think the age of consent should be dropped just like Neo-Nazis can go on about Jews and the like - it is only when it crosses over into illegal acts, or language that incites or invites illegal acts that things get illegal.


That's the problem, if they only wanted to think about pedophilia (aka Child Rape) that's fine, they can think it all the want as long as they don't act on it. But they are running for office in the hopes that they can win and change laws to make something illegal legal, thats the problem. Come on man, they hope to lower the age of consent to what 12?

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's it. I'm not putting anything else in this thread. If you're this warped of mind, then there's nothing I can do. The teacher is 30, the kid is a minor. But I guess that to a freak like you, that's just not important. Pedophiles are monsters, but there's no way to convince that to somone with such an evil liberal mindset. So enjoy your stay in Hell.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the problem, if they only wanted to think about pedophilia (aka Child Rape) that's fine, they can think it all the want as long as they don't act on it. But they are running for office in the hopes that they can win and change laws to make something illegal legal, thats the problem. Come on man, they hope to lower the age of consent to what 12?


Peadophilia and child rape are NOT the same thing.

Paedophilia- adult attraction to children or young teenagers. Peadophial sex can occur with or without consent.

Child Rape- when an adult forces a child to have sex with him or her. Lacks consent.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Although I find it personally disgusting, the answer is yes....

If there is consent, then it is NOT RAPE....

Is it a fair relationship, however? No....when one is older, they always have the mental advantage. There are OTHER ISSUES at hand here....however, it is not rape.

As for asking me "is it okay"...what is okay and not okay is all subjective, and irrelevant in this debate.

A fourteen year old is not allowed to vote, own a gun, drive, drink etc etc etc for reasons. You think they could consciously make the decision on having a 50 year old sodomize them? If you think that, I dare you to be locked and restrained in a room with a fourteen year old holding a loaded gun and trust they are adult enough to not accidentally shot you.

Will you take that Pepsi challenge?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Peadophilia and child rape are NOT the same thing.

Paedophilia- adult attraction to children or young teenagers. Peadophial sex can occur with or without consent.

Child Rape- when an adult forces a child to have sex with him or her. Lacks consent.

I'm not talking about a 19 year old (adult) having sex with a 17 year old (minor)... We're talking about lowering the consent age to 12 or so. Pedophilia is rape, a child cannot make that choice willfully.

Originally posted by Robtard
A fourteen year old is not allowed to vote, own a gun, drive, drink etc etc etc for reasons.

So....a 14 year old cant have sex, y ? Address the main point, or don't make a point at all.


Originally posted by Robtard
You think they could consciously make the decision on having a 50 year old sodomize them?

How do you know the 14 year old won't sodomize the 50 year old ? And why sodomizationg? If a 14 year old girl has sex with a 50 year old man, i dont see any possibility of sodomization.

I think you're thinking too narrowly and blindly.


Originally posted by Robtard
If you think that, I dare you to be locked and restrained in a room with a fourteen year old with a loaded gun and trust they are adult enough to not accidentally shot you.

I think most 14 year olds would drop the gun. Give them a lil more credit

Anyways, you keep dancing around my point, while failing to make a valid point of your own.

Sex with consent is not Rape. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not talking about a 19 year old (adult) having sex with a 17 year old (minor)... We're talking about lowering the consent age to 12 or so. Pedophilia is rape, a child cannot make that choice willfully.

When I was 11 years old I wanted to have sex with my teacher. IF she wanted to do so as well, and I gave her my consent, would that have been rape ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So....a 14 year old cant have sex, y ? Address the main point, or don't make a point at all.

How do you know the 14 year old won't sodomize the 50 year old ? And why sodomizationg? If a 14 year old girl has sex with a 50 year old man, i dont see any possibility of sodomization.

I think you're thinking too narrowly and blindly.

I think most 14 year olds would drop the gun. Give them a lil more credit

Anyways, you keep dancing around my point, while failing to make a valid point of your own.

Sex with consent is not Rape. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

A fourteen year old having sex with a 50 year old wouldn't be sex, It would be one-sided and it would be rape.

Doesn't matter who is sticking it to who, it's still rape and the sodomy part is irrelevant, it would be just as bad if it was oral sex. BTW, a 50 year old man could sodomize (anal sex) a 14 year old girl, but that is besides the point.

I asked would you trust a 14 year old to act like an adult and not accidentally shot you every time?

What is your point? That a fourteen year old can consent to sex with a 50 year old? I disagree. It'd be rape.

Yes sex with consent is not rape, but a young child cannot consciously make that choice in having sex with an adult. Hence pedophilia is rape.

Originally posted by Robtard
A fourteen year old having sex with a 50 year old wouldn't be sex, It would be one-sided and it would be rape.

Doesn't matter who is sticking it to who, it's still rape and the sodomy part is irrelevant, it would be just as bad if it was oral sex. BTW, a 50 year old man could sodomize (anal sex) a 14 year old girl, but that is besides the point.

I asked would you trust a 14 year old to act like an adult and not accidentally shot you every time?

What is your point? That a fourteen year old can consent to sex with a 50 year old? I disagree. It'd be rape.

Yes sex with consent is not rape, but a young child cannot consciously make that choice in having sex with an adult. Hence pedophilia is rape.


Every 14 year old has the ability to give consent to sex. If you honestly think a 14 year old cannot do it, then you are either homeschooled or lying to yourself.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
When I was 11 years old I wanted to have sex with my teacher. IF she wanted to do so as well, and I gave her my consent, would that have been rape ?



Yes, she would have been a rapist if she allowed you to live out your childish fantasy. It's the adults job to be the adult.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, she would have been a rapist if she allowed you to live out your childish fantasy. It's the adults job to be the adult.

But she had my consent. Therefore it would not have been rape.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Every 14 year old has the ability to give consent to sex. If you honestly think a 14 year old cannot do it, then you are either homeschooled or lying to yourself.

Again. we're talking about sex with adults, if two kids want to play and explore that's a different story. But we are not talking about that, we're talking about young child to adult.

If you had a 14 year old daughter, would you allow here to 'consent' to sleeping with a 40 year old man? Even if she begged and said she wanted it? Also, the gun question above?

I was fourteen years old once and I wanted to have sex with my best friends mom, it wouldn't make it right if she allowed me my fantasy. Lol, homeschooled? Think that if you want.

These sickos want to lower the age to benefit them, not give children more rights and you're buying into that sickness.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the problem, if they only wanted to think about pedophilia (aka Child Rape) that's fine, they can think it all the want as long as they don't act on it. But they are running for office in the hopes that they can win and change laws to make something illegal legal, thats the problem. Come on man, they hope to lower the age of consent to what 12?

Which, incidentally, was often the age a child could be married off in the distant past.

But that is beside the point. They are advocating a change of laws, not pedophilia in general. If they were successful then it would not be pedophilia would it? And technically they have the right to voice such an opinion on the change of laws. After all, laws dealing with age of consent have been debated in the past - age of consent dropped from 18 to 16. For gays it dropped from in the 20's to 18. People at the time cried foul - but it was judged workable.

Of course what these people are advocating can not, and will not, become a reality. Thus let them run. They will be smashed in the election, and it will send a clear message on how the majority feel on the subject.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which, incidentally, was often the age a child could be married off in the distant past.

But that is beside the point. They are advocating a change of laws, not pedophilia in general. If they were successful then it would not be pedophilia would it? And technically they have the right to voice such an opinion on the change of laws. After all, laws dealing with age of consent have been debated in the past - age of consent dropped from 18 to 16. For gays it dropped from in the 20's to 18. People at the time cried foul - but it was judged workable.

Of course what these people are advocating can not, and will not, become a reality. Thus let them run. They will be smashed in the election, and it will send a clear message on how the majority feel on the subject.

Are you 100% sure of that? If you had a 12 year old child and lived in the Netherlands would you be willing to take that risk?

But I do see your point on "send a clear message" though, just bitter to swallow.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again. we're talking about sex with adults, if two kids want to play and explore that's a different story. But we are not talking about that, we're talking about young child to adult.

So what you're saying is that a 14 year old has the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, but somehow cannot give consent to someone over that age?

What ??????

Originally posted by Robtard
If you had a 14 year old daughter, would you allow here to 'consent' to sleeping with a 40 year old man? Even if she begged and said she wanted it? Also, the gun question above?


1) The Gun Question....I would expect that most 14 year olds would drop the gun and not shoot me. Since when does age determine that? A 20 year old could just as easily shoot me as a 14 year old could...

2) I don't plan to have kids. If I had a daugher who was 14, would I want her to have sex with a 40 year old man ? It would gross me out that a man my own age is screwing my daughter....however, I wouldn't scream rape.

I would be just as upset that my daughter was having sex at age 14 with someone age 20 just as much as if she were to do it with someone who is 40 years old.

The Fact that she's even having sex at that age would make me question my power as a parent. It's not the principle of the thing that means ne thing to me...it's the fact that she may catch STD's or get pregnant to early that would worry me.

Originally posted by Robtard
I was fourteen years old once and I wanted to have sex with my best friends mom, it wouldn't make it right if she allowed me my fantasy. Lol, homeschooled? Think that if you want.


You are basically telling me that at age 11 I did not have the ability to give consent, even though I clearly did. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Originally posted by Robtard
These sickos want to lower the age to benefit them, not give children more rights and you're buying into that sickness.

I'm fine with lowering the age of consent to 14, as long as there IS Consent. I'm also fine with allowing teenagers age 15-16 to do pornography.

I just don't like the idea of 10 year olds doing porn or having sex with adults....I feel for the sake of sexual maturity, children who are too young should not be exposed to something they are not ready for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you 100% sure of that? If you had a 12 year old child and lived in the Netherlands would you be willing to take that risk?

But I do see your point on "send a clear message" though, just bitter to swallow.

I can be cynical, a realist and a pragmatist. But I do have some small faith in the common sense of people. Yes, I 100% believe they will be defeated. Knowing the Netherlands there is no way this party is going to get anywhere near power. And as someone else posted initial reactions are fully in line with my predictions.

And ultimately it is the chance. I prefer a national expression of disagreement then the idea of censoring them and opening all sort of cans of worms, or driving them underground like banned political parties of old.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So what you're saying is that a 14 year old has the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, but somehow cannot give consent to someone over that age?

What ??????
1) The Gun Question....I would expect that most 14 year olds would drop the gun and not shoot me. Since when does age determine that? A 20 year old could just as easily shoot me as a 14 year old could...

2) I don't plan to have kids. If I had a daugher who was 14, would I want her to have sex with a 40 year old man ? It would gross me out that a man my own age is screwing my daughter....however, I wouldn't scream rape.

I would be just as upset that my daughter was having sex at age 14 with someone age 20 just as much as if she were to do it with someone who is 40 years old.

The Fact that she's even having sex at that age would make me question my power as a parent. It's not the principle of the thing that means ne thing to me...it's the fact that she may catch STD's or get pregnant to early that would worry me.

You are basically telling me that at age 11 I did not have the ability to give consent, even though I clearly did. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

I'm fine with lowering the age of consent to 14, as long as there IS Consent. I'm also fine with allowing teenagers age 15-16 to do pornography.

I just don't like the idea of 10 year olds doing porn or having sex with adults....I feel for the sake of sexual maturity, children who are too young should not be exposed to something they are not ready for.

Yes, a child exploring with another child is normal and part of growing up. It wouldn't be exploring with a 14 to a 40 year old. A child hasn't physcially or mentally matured enough to experience sex with a 40 year old.

Come on now, we both know that you would not risk your life on trusting a child with a gun when you're own life is on the line. The point being that a 14 year old is not an adult and not able to rationalize like an adult would. That's why we have age limits and parents are responsible for their children's actions.

If you wouldn't be against your 14 year old child having sex with a 40 year old it's a good thing you're not having kids. That's just sick...

I don't think you did, children often want a lot of things, as adults we certainly do not give them everything they want.

Dude, lowering the age to 14 or lower will only benefit pedophiles, it wouldn't be for giving children more rights and a 15-16 year old doing porn? WTF! Let me guess, you're OK with child labor in third world countries since the kids could consent to working 15 hour days in horrible work conditions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, a child exploring with another child is normal and part of growing up. It wouldn't be exploring with a 14 to a 40 year old. A child hasn't physcially or mentally matured enough to experience sex with a 40 year old.


It's not RAPE if thier is consent. 14 year olds have the ability to give consent. That's the point. If they have the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, then they have the ability to give consent to anyone....stop dancing around that point please.


Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, we both know that you would not risk your life on trusting a child with a gun when you're own life is on the line. The point being that a 14 year old is not an adult and not able to rationalize like an adult would. That's why we have age limits and parents are responsible for their children's actions.

If would tell the 14 year old to drop the gun. If he or she were rational, they would do so. It would be just as dangerous to put an insane 50 year old in the room with a gun, as it would be to put an instable 14 year old.

It doesn't matter who shoots me...if get shot, i get shot, If i dont, i don't. I wouldnt trust ANYBODY with a gun.....

Originally posted by Robtard
If you wouldn't be against your 14 year old child having sex with a 40 year old it's a good thing you're not having kids. That's just sick...


I would be against my daughter having sex with ANYONE at that age.....simply because she is putting herself at physical risk.

Would I think it disgusting if she had sex with a 40 year old ? Hellz yeah, but if she gave permission, then IT WAS NOT RAPE.

What part don't u get ?

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think you did, children often want a lot of things, as adults we certainly do not give them everything they want.

You keep dancing around the point....I TOTALLY had the ability to give Consent, as do most 14 year olds....it doesn't matter what you think.

If you want to have sex, and you say "i want to have sex with you" then you are giving Consent. End of story, stop with the endless semantics alright, they aren't countering anything.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, lowering the age to 14 or lower will only benefit pedophiles, it wouldn't be for giving children more rights and a 15-16 year old doing porn? WTF! Let me guess, you're OK with child labor in third world countries since the kids could consent to working 15 hour days in horrible work conditions.



I'm not okay with child labor in third world countries, because the children are experiencing suffering and pain, not pleasure.

I'm fine with 15 and 16 year olds doing porn, because:

1) 15 and 16 year olds have sex anyway....

2) They would be experiencing pleasure not pain

3) They'd be making money $$$$$

4) They'd be having fun....


As long as thier practicing safe sex, and use birth control, i don't see a problem.

I think the consent issue is more complicated than "She gave consent so it's ok.", if it's a 14 year old and a 40 year old, but the fact that she gave consent must never be overlooked.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think the consent issue is more complicated than "She gave consent so it's ok.", if it's a 14 year old and a 40 year old, but the fact that she gave consent must never be overlooked.

-AC

Whether or not it's "okay" is subjective and means nothing. It's just as valid as saying "It's disgusting". What me and Robtarded have in common is that we both find it gross.

What separates us is that I still recognize the consent, while he renders it non-existant.

For him to so do makes him no better than a 40 year old man taking advantage of a naive and horny 14 year old girl.

Consent should always be recognised, especially from a teenager.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It's not RAPE if thier is consent. 14 year olds have the ability to give consent. That's the point. If they have the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, then they have the ability to give consent to anyone....stop dancing around that point please.

If would tell the 14 year old to drop the gun. If he or she were rational, they would do so. It would be just as dangerous to put an insane 50 year old in the room with a gun, as it would be to put an instable 14 year old.

It doesn't matter who shoots me...if get shot, i get shot, If i dont, i don't. I wouldnt trust ANYBODY with a gun.....

I would be against my daughter having sex with ANYONE at that age.....simply because she is putting herself at physical risk.

Would I think it disgusting if she had sex with a 40 year old ? Hellz yeah, but if she gave permission, then IT WAS NOT RAPE.

What part don't u get ?

You keep dancing around the point....I TOTALLY had the ability to give Consent, as do most 14 year olds....it doesn't matter what you think.

If you want to have sex, and you say "i want to have sex with you" then you are giving Consent. End of story, stop with the endless semantics alright, they aren't countering anything.

I'm not okay with child labor in third world countries, because the children are experiencing suffering and pain, not pleasure.

I'm fine with 15 and 16 year olds doing porn, because:

1) 15 and 16 year olds have sex anyway....

2) They would be experiencing pleasure not pain

3) They'd be making money $$$$$

4) They'd be having fun....

As long as thier practicing safe sex, and use birth control, i don't see a problem.

So it's consent to you... Society has age limits for a reason, responsible adults realize that children develop in stages and 'we' are not born prepared with everything we need to know from the get go. I don't care what you say or how you try to justify it this sickness, a 14 year old is not mentally mature enough to make a willful choice to have sex with an adult let alone an older adult. The child would be taken advantage of from the adult; therefore it would be rape and the child would/could likely experience pain both mental and physical from the experience. Luckily,society realizes this and pedophilia is against the law because it is child rape.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
For him to so do makes him no better than a 40 year old man taking advantage of a naive and horny 14 year old girl.

OK big guy, you're the one that would be alright, albiet disgusted with your 14 year old child having sex with a 40 year old and you say I'm "no better than a 40 year old man taking advantage of a naive and horny 14 year old girl." Sure...

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's consent to you... Society has age limits for a reason, responsible adults realize that children develop in stages and 'we' are not born prepared with everything we need to know from the get go. I don't care what you say or how you try to justify it this sickness, a 14 year old is not mentally mature enough to make a willful choice to have sex with an adult let alone an older adult. The child would be taken advantage of from the adult; therefore it would be rape and the child would/could likely experience pain both mental and physical from the experience. Luckily,society realizes this and pedophilia is against the law because it is child rape.

Oh give it a rest. You do realise that 14 is merely TWO years off what is considered to be the age of consent, right? Where did this idea that all 14 year olds are retards who, in the following two years, somehow gain all the necessary credentials to go and f*ck someone?

That's like saying at 18 you don't know what you're getting into by drinking.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's consent to you... Society has age limits for a reason, responsible adults realize that children develop in stages and 'we' are not born prepared with everything we need to know from the get go.


1)Consent is consent regardless of whether or not you decide to recognize it. You would give an adult who had consentual sex with a 14 year old the SAME punishment and regard as a 20 year old who raped a 9 year old ?

2) Who says adults are ready to have sex either? Some 20 year olds are still virgins, because they don't feel ready to have sex yet.

Who are you to decide that a 14 year old is not ready to have sex , much less lack the ability to give consent?

3) Again, as for being a MAJOR HYPOCRIT....you say a 14 year old has the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, but not an adult? HOW SO ? How do you know a malicious 14 year old isn't "taking advantage" of another 14 year old ?

You never explained that, you just keep dancing around it with bullshit.



Originally posted by Robtard
I don't care what you say or how you try to justify it this sickness, a 14 year old is not mentally mature enough to make a willful choice to have sex with an adult let alone an older adult.

But a 14 year old IS mentally mature enough to have sex with another 14 year old ? ???


Originally posted by Robtard
The child would be taken advantage of from the adult; therefore it would be rape and the child would/could likely experience pain both mental and physical from the experience.


Rape and being taken advantage of are two different things. An adult can "take advantage" of another adult in a consenting relationship. The same applie for two people any age.

I know a 14 year old who experience nothing but pleasure from having sex with a 30 year old, no pain was there. When I was 15 I had sex with a 24 year old....It was fun as hell, there was no pain there....

Stop speaking for other people, don't talk about sh*t you know nothing about, okay ?


Originally posted by Robtard
Luckily,society realizes this and pedophilia is against the law because it is child rape.

True Peadophilia is having sex with a real child, not a teenager. A 14 year old is not a child, it's a teenager (four-teen)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1)Consent is consent regardless of whether or not you decide to recognize it. You would give an adult who had consentual sex with a 14 year old the SAME punishment and regard as a 20 year old who raped a 9 year old ?

2) Who says adults are ready to have sex either? Some 20 year olds are still virgins, because they don't feel ready to have sex yet.

Who are you to decide that a 14 year old is not ready to have sex , much less lack the ability to give consent?

3) Again, as for being a MAJOR HYPOCRIT....you say a 14 year old has the ability to give consent to another 14 year old, but not an adult? HOW SO ? How do you know a malicious 14 year old isn't "taking advantage" of another 14 year old ?

You never explained that, you just keep dancing around it with bullshit.

But a 14 year old IS mentally mature enough to have sex with another 14 year old ? ???

Rape and being taken advantage of are two different things. An adult can "take advantage" of another adult in a consenting relationship. The same applie for two people any age.

I know a 14 year old who experience nothing but pleasure from having sex with a 30 year old, no pain was there. When I was 15 I had sex with a 24 year old....It was fun as hell, there was no pain there....

Stop speaking for other people, don't talk about sh*t you know nothing about, okay ?

True Peadophilia is having sex with a real child, not a teenager. A 14 year old is not a child, it's a teenager (four-teen)

Simple, children exploring each other is part of growing up, it's a stage in maturity. They are both at about the same sexual mental and physical maturity. A 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old wouldn't be the same, it would be preying on the child.

What's the point about a 20 year old willfully being a virgin? Irrelevant here. As an adult, he/she is mentally mature enough to abstain from sex or be the center of a gangbang.

Don't use your own personal experience as justification. I'm not speaking for other adults, I'm speaking for children. On the other hand, you as an adult who has no plans on having children is speaking on behalf of other peoples children... and you call me a hypocrite?

So a fourteen year old is completely and utterly mature, should we allow him/her to own a gun, drink, drive, smoke and vote?

Also, if you had any deceny, you would report that 30 year old for raping that 14 year old; unless of course, this is you you're talking about? Is his/her parents ok with this?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
True Peadophilia is having sex with a real child, not a teenager. A 14 year old is not a child, it's a teenager (four-teen)

False.

You're a legal child until you are 18.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Simple, children exploring each other is part of growing up, it's a stage in maturity and growing up. They are both at about the same sexual mental and physical maturity. A 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old wouldn't be the same, it would be preying on the child.


I agree that a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is taking advantage, simply because Age difference gives the 40 year old better ability to sway a 14 year old into doing things that favor him or herself.

However, it's not Rape when Consent is involved. You still have not prove otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
What's the point about a 20 year old willfully being a virgin? Irrelevant here. As an adult, he/she is mentally mature enough to abstain from sex or be the center of a gangbang.

The point is some people are not ready for sex regardless of thier age. Some people ARE regardless of thier age.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't use your own personal experience as justification. I'm not speaking for other adults, I'm speaking for children. On the other hand, you as an adult who has no plans on having children is speaking on behalf of other peoples children... and you call me a hypocrite?


I WAS speaking for children...When I was 15 I had sex with a 24 year old, and I felt no pain...it was just fun. You claim that its always pain, when you have no fkn idea what you're talkn about.

How is it hypocritical to talk about my freind's experience when she was 14?

Originally posted by Robtard
So a fourteen year old is completely and utterly mature, should we allow him/her to own a gun, drink, drive, smoke and vote?

No, but we should allow him or her to have sex.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
False.

You're a legal child until you are 18.

-AC

Legal don't mean shit. Technically, you are always a child to your parent.....

A child and teenager are not the same thing.

Yes, legal does mean shit, seeing as it's what the law is based on.

It's called "Age of Consent" for a reason. Because whatever consent a person gives prior to being that age is invalid.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, legal does mean shit, seeing as it's what the law is based on.

The Law is a human construct, and is only means as much as we make it mean. It does not reflect reality, only collective agreement.

So you would agree that there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old, because they are both legally children ?

Originally posted by BackFire
It's called "Age of Consent" for a reason. Because whatever consent a person gives prior to being that age is invalid.

Invalid by law. Law, again is a human construct, which does not reflect nature or reality, and is entirely fallible.

Consent is Consent, regardless of whether we recognize it or not.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree that a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is taking advantage, simply because Age difference gives the 40 year old better ability to sway a 14 year old into doing things that favor him or herself.

However, it's not Rape when Consent is involved. You still have not prove otherwise.

The point is some people are not ready for sex regardless of thier age. Some people ARE regardless of thier age.

I WAS speaking for children...When I was 15 I had sex with a 24 year old, and I felt no pain...it was just fun. You claim that its always pain, when you have no fkn idea what you're talkn about.

How is it hypocritical to talk about my freind's experience when she was 14?

No, but we should allow him or her to have sex.

Well, if you feel that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drink, drive, vote, own a gun and smoke why is this same 14 year old mature enough to have sex with a 40 year old?

Again, do not use your own personal experience to justify this sickness and as someone who never plans on having kids don't try and justify child rape. I didn't say there would always be pain, but the risk for physical and mental pain exist, especially the latter.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Legal don't mean shit. Technically, you are always a child to your parent.....

A child and teenager are not the same thing.

Well it is stratified based upon the perception of autonomy. A 16 year old is different from a child below the age of 13. Etc based on mental and emmotional maturity. Rights and freedoms come at periods where teenagers are judged to be sufficiently mature to handle them (voting being on of the last things given)

However full autonomy is not legally recognised until the age of 18. Till that time you still have guardians/wards. Beyond that point you are a free citizen, before that point there are still some limitations, despite the amount of freedoms possessed.

Legally there isn't a difference, morally there is. Two different sets of rules in place for each.

Law does reflect nature. Humans are a part of nature, law's were created by humans, thus our laws are based on nature and on the reality in which we live.

Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningless.

Originally posted by BackFire
Legally there isn't a difference, morally there is. Two different sets of rules in place for each.

Law does reflect nature. Humans are a part of nature, law's were created by humans, thus our laws are based on nature and on the reality in which we live.

Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly.

But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough,we wouldn't have age limits on anything.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, if you feel that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drink, drive, vote, own a gun and smoke why is this same 14 year old mature enough to have sex with a 40 year old?

If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...

Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, do not use your own personal experience to justify this sickness and as someone who never plans on having kids don't try and justify child rape. I didn't say there would always be pain, but the risk for physical and mental pain exist, especially the latter.


I am justifying no sickness. There is nothing sick about having sex with a sexual being (both 14 year olds and 40 year olds are sexual beings). Atleast I have personal experience to fall back on, while you have nothing but a bunch of meaningless bias and opinion.

I NEVER tried to justify Child Rape you idiot. Child Rape is when you FORCE a child to have sex, and there is no consent given.

If there is Consent, then it is NOT RAPE...get that through your thick ass head.


The risk for pain exists for EVERYONE not just 14 year olds.

Originally posted by Robtard
But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough, e would have age limits on anything.

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Robtard
But you assume that a child is mature enough to give consent and mature enough to fully understand what they are consenting to and fully understand the consequences. If kids of that age were mature enough, e would have age limits on anything.

Totally Untrue

We have tons of unnecessary limits in Government and Law. The ban of Gay Marriage is a completely unnecessary act.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Legal don't mean shit. Technically, you are always a child to your parent.....

A child and teenager are not the same thing.

How can you debate legality and then say it doesn't mean shit?

Yes, it does. A human is a legal child until they are 18.

So when you have sex with a child over the age of 16, you having sex with a minor, but a minor who can consent legally.

I don't know why you're trying to tell me children and teens are different, you're a child until you're an adult, which is at 18.

-AC

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...

Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.

Well actually it, legally can. Dolby Incapax (though not working beyond the age of 14) states that while a child can do many things they lack the ability, the maturity, the rationality to understand causation. As such it has to be proved by the prosecution that they actually understood what they are doing, otherwise it is assumed they acted ignorantly. Obviously a a child from 5 up can pick up a gun and fire it - how ever being able to do the act does not equate into necessarily understanding it.

Of course it is all very debatable, and many agree these days 14 year olds are a lot more mature then given credit for. Still, there is enough date that makes completely ruling out both sides difficult.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How can you debate legality and then say it doesn't mean shit?

Yes, it does. A human is a legal child until they are 18.

So when you have sex with a child over the age of 16, you having sex with a minor, but a minor who can consent legally.

I don't know why you're trying to tell me children and teens are different, you're a child until you're an adult, which is at 18.

-AC

1) So there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old ? Their level of consent is equivalent ?

2) There are different definitions of "child". According to Law, child simply means offspring dependent.

I am not using that defintion. I am using the definition of a child as a "young kid". A pre teen is child. a Teenager is not.

Originally posted by BackFire
What the hell are you talking about?

You said: "Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly."

I'm saying children are not mature enough to always give consent. That's why we have age limits.

Did I misunderstand your statement?

Originally posted by Robtard
You said: "Yes, consent is consent, doesn't change the fact that consent before a certain age is meaningly."

I'm saying children are not mature enough to always give consent. That's why we have age limits.

Did I misunderstand your statement?

He is saying that thier consent means nothing in the eyes of the Law.

That's a given, but he recognizes that consent exists nonetheless.

You don't. You think every time a 14 year old has sex with someone above age 18, it's rape, and that's not the case.

Meaningly was a typo, was supposed to be meaningless.

So yes, a misunderstanding occured. I was basically saying that while consent exists, it's doesn't mean anything if the person giving it is under the age of consent.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a 14 year old is mature enough to have sex at ALL, than they are mature enough to have sex with whoever...

Your logic on age difference is making no valid sense.

I am justifying no sickness. There is nothing sick about having sex with a sexual being (both 14 year olds and 40 year olds are sexual beings). Atleast I have personal experience to fall back on, while you have nothing but a bunch of meaningless bias and opinion.

I NEVER tried to justify Child Rape you idiot. Child Rape is when you FORCE a child to have sex, and there is no consent given.

If there is Consent, then it is NOT RAPE...get that through your thick ass head.

The risk for pain exists for EVERYONE not just 14 year olds.

Taking advantage of a childs desires for sex is CHILD RAPE if you're an adult. You assume that children are mature enough to have sex but you admit that children are not old enough to vote, own a gun, drive, smoke and drink. Why?

You're trying to justify 'maturity levels' to make child/adult sex seem alright because you happened to have it. Who's bias now?

Called me an idiot? Ouch... When facts go against you it always easiest to resort to an attack.

Originally posted by BackFire
Meaningly was a typo, was supposed to be meaningless.

So yes, a misunderstanding occured. I was basically saying that while consent exists, it's doesn't mean anything if the person giving it is under the age of consent.

Groovy.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) So there is no difference between a 9 year old and a 16 year old ? Their level of consent is equivalent ?

No. 16 is the legal age of consent.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) There are different definitions of "child". According to Law, child simply means offspring dependent.

No, according to law, anyone under the age of 18 isn't considered an adult.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am not using that defintion. I am using the definition of a child as a "young kid". A pre teen is child. a Teenager is not.

So? We're discussing trial and conviction, in which case law applies, and you're a child by law until you are 18.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Taking advantage of a childs desires for sex is CHILD RAPE if you're an adult. You assume that children are mature enough to have sex but you admit that children are not old enough to vote, own a gun, drive, smoke and drink. Why?

It's called Statuatory rape by law, but it is not the same as actual Rape. Actual Rape lacks consent, while statuatory rape is a violation of the age limit, the law calls it such because it wants to IGNORE existance of Consent the way you do.

I never said children are mature enough to have sex. I said some teenagers are.

Sex is not a bad thing, so get over it. Owning a gun is deadly, driving is dangerous, smoking and drinking are unhealthy.

Sex is not wrong, nor is it comparable to those other things you keep trying to bring up.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're trying to justify 'maturity levels' to make child/adult sex seem alright because you happened to have it. Who's bias now?

I am not justifying shit. I am telling you that CONSENT EXISTS between a teenager and adult, and i am vouching for it based on my ability to give consent when I was 15 to a 24 year old.

You're decision to ignore that shows how pathetic and narrow minded your stance is.

Originally posted by Robtard
Called me an idiot? Ouch... When facts go against you it always easiest to resort to an attack.

Yes, you're an idiot, because you're NOT presenting facts...you just keep saying "Oh, i dont thnk consent exists, because i think it's disgusting and immoral...yada yada yada."

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It's called Statuatory rape by law, but it is not the same as actual Rape. Actual Rape lacks consent, while statuatory rape is a violation of the age limit, the law calls it such because it wants to IGNORE existance of Consent the way you do.

I never said children are mature enough to have sex. I said some teenagers are.

Sex is not a bad thing, so get over it. Owning a gun is deadly, driving is dangerous, smoking and drinking are unhealthy.

Sex is not wrong, nor is it comparable to those other things you keep trying to bring up.

I am not justifying shit. I am telling you that CONSENT EXISTS between a teenager and adult, and i am vouching for it based on my ability to give consent when I was 15 to a 24 year old.

You're decision to ignore that shows how pathetic and narrow minded your stance is.

Yes, you're an idiot, because you're NOT presenting facts...you just keep saying "Oh, i dont thnk consent exists, because i think it's disgusting and immoral...yada yada yada."

Again, we're not talking about a 17 being with a 19 year old, though still illegal the justice system see's a difference as the punishment is not as severe as a 14 being with a 40 year old. You do not see a difference and claim a 14 year old can give consent and is mature enough to know the consequences.

Sex is a great thing, I agree, but we're talking about children having sex with adults here; there is a difference. I beg to differ, sex can be very dangerous (HIV) and would you trust a 14 year old is mature enough to understand the consequences of having sex with a 40 year old who has possibly been around while you wouldn't trust him/her with driving? Is this 14 year old old enough to know about protection him or herself from STD's or pregnancy?

Great, you were mature enough to get f#cked by and 24 year old when you were 14, I understand; you are super special. But you're using you're own personal experience to say it should be legal and alright for other peoples children.

Did I never say it's immoral? Have I brought up any kind of religious stance? I just happen to realize that children are not old enough to always make the right decision for themselves and as adults we protect them from making bad choices as best we can.

I'd rather be an idiot than a chicken-hawk, so sure.

...

Pedophiles do not care about children. They see them as objects. Period.

Children are taught that adults know what is best for them. They are taught to respect their elders. Pedophiles twist this in order to brainwash children into having sex with them. Consent? I don't think so.

The PNVD does not have credibility. They are NOT a group of law abiding citizens. A prominent member of this group by the
name of Ad van den Berg was convicted of molesting an 11 year old boy in 1987. If these people stand for consensual sex then why did one of their members molest that little boy? =/

~ Kryzula

Originally posted by Kryzula
Pedophiles do not care about children. They see them as objects. Period.

~ Kryzula

WRONG.

Originally posted by Kryzula
If these people stand for consensual sex then why did one of their members molest that little boy? =/

~ Kryzula

Stupid reasoning. Sex with minors is considered to not be consensual, therefore molestation, the child may very well have actually given consent.

If the child was traumatized by his experience after it occurred then it should not matter whether or not he gave his consent. The law should still protect him.

~ Kryzula

Originally posted by Kryzula
If the child was traumatized by his experience after it occurred then it should not matter whether or not he gave his consent. The law should still protect him.

~ Kryzula

Fair enough, but here it says nothing about the child being traumatized, as well as the possibility that children are just traumatized because of the way it is treated in our society...Peisistratos was the child **** buddy of Solon and he turned out to be one of the greatest rulers of Athens...maybe it's really just the way we treat it in our societies.

paedephiles need not be alive for any reason

Originally posted by dr. pookie
paedephiles need not be alive for any reason

No one needs to be alive for any reason.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
That's not freedom. That's perversion. What the **** happened to morals? Human decency? Any sense of right or wrong? I can't believe that you freaks are all sympathizing with these animals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I gotta agree with what you say man. Human nature has went down the toilet in a lot of places.

Originally posted by The Pict
I gotta agree with what you say man. Human nature has went down the toilet in a lot of places.

*cough*Athens*cough*

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough, but here it says nothing about the child being traumatized, as well as the possibility that children are just traumatized because of the way it is treated in our society...Peisistratos was the child **** buddy of Solon and he turned out to be one of the greatest rulers of Athens...maybe it's really just the way we treat it in our societies.

There are many things that were acceptable in society at one point and are not anymore, whats the point? Slavery was justified throughout history and luckily we have progressed beyond that.


What did you say Kryzula was "WRONG"? Care to extraploate?

Originally posted by Robtard
There are many things that were acceptable in society at one point and are not anymore, whats the point? Slavery was justified throughout history and luckily we have evolved beyond that.

Well, that human nature has not went down the toilet, since, even if you consider paedophilia the toilet, it has been there already....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that human nature has not went down the toilet, since, even if you consider paedophilia the toilet, it has been there already....

I don't think it has either, but if these pedophiles were to win and somehow change the laws that allowed them to coerce the young and legally rape them, that would be a definite step into the toilet bowl.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think it has either, but if these pedophiles were to win and somehow change the laws that allowed them to coerce the young and legally rape them, that would be a definite step into the toilet bowl.

What do you mean "legally rape them" ...they want to allow younger humans to choose when to ahve sec...doesn't sxeem that ridicolous ito me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean "legally rape them" ...they want to allow younger humans to choose when to ahve sec...doesn't sxeem that ridicolous ito me.

This movement is not about giving more rights to children, this is solely for the benefit of sick individuals who want to prey on children. Seriously man, they want to lower the age of consent to 12, are you telling me a 12 year old has the life experience and is mature to make the decision to have sex with an adult and know the consequences? That seems alright to you?

Originally posted by Robtard
This movement is not about giving more rights to children, this is solely for the benefit of sick individuals who want to prey on children. Seriously man, they want to lower the age of consent to 12, are you telling me a 12 year old has the life experience and is mature to make the decision to have sex with an adult and know the consequences? That seems alright to you?

Yes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.

Then you're nothing more than a pedophile. Sickening.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you're nothing more than a pedophile. Sickening.

Okay. Although I dig chicks my age.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay. Although I dig chicks my age.

Your point being? You're still alright with adults having sex with children. Out of morbid curiosity, is 12 the limit or would you lower it even more if you could?

Originally posted by Robtard
Your point being? You're still alright with adults having sex with children. Out of morbid curiosity, is 12 the limit or would you lower it even more if you could?

Nah, I think 12 or 13 sounds like a decent line. Generally it is about giving them the opportunity tpo decide, and a line is generally against individualism, but I would say 12 and below is acceptable to deny this freedom.

I agree we have to protect children (just like every other citizen), but there is a difference between taking away a freedom and protect in an acceptable manner. Rape will still be rape...why do we need two laws for that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I think 12 or 13 sounds like a decent line. Generally it is about giving them the opportunity tpo decide, and a line is generally against individualism, but I would say 12 and below is acceptable to deny this freedom.

I agree we have to protect children (just like every other citizen), but there is a difference between taking away a freedom and protect in an acceptable manner. Rape will still be rape...why do we need two laws for that.

It's giving them the opportunity to be taken advantage of from adults whom children usually look up too for guidance. This law is not about giving children more rights, no matter how you or this pedophile party slices it.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's giving them the opportunity to be taken advantage of from adults whom children usually look up too for guidance. This law is not about giving children more rights, no matter how you or this pedophile party slices it.

Otherwie it's taken them the opportunity to have sexual intercourse with whoever they please.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Otherwie it's taken them the opportunity to have sexual intercourse with whoever they please.

No... Society realizes that children develop in stages and children do not always make the best choices for themselves, they are not mature enough to realize the consequences; if we allowed children to do what ever whim came to them, society wouldn't exist. Also mentioned before, children look up to adults, so an adult could easily coerce a child into having sex. That's the same as preying of someone weaker than yourself because you can and that doesn't make it right.

Your stance of 'This is for the rights of children' is the same exact stance as the pedophile party and it's wrong; luckily the vast majority of people realize this and pedophilia is illegal.

Yeah, but what is the line? Why is lets say 16 or 18 better than 12?

Society takes freedom away by saying they are not mature enough. that is not fair. To take advantage of a person be it 12, 20 or 70 is not accepted in our society. There is no reason to protect children beyond that. It's just generally seen as sick and disgusting. Fair enough, but don't take them the chance to mature sexually as they please. It doesn't necessarily screw up the child, it's not justified to do what we do.

My stance is reasonable, sadly the vast majority of people become insane and stupid when hearing "paedophilia" ...they are conditioned well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but what is the line? Why is lets say 16 or 18 better than 12?

Society takes freedom away by saying they are not mature enough. that is not fair. To take advantage of a person be it 12, 20 or 70 is not accepted in our society. There is no reason to protect children beyond that. It's just generally seen as sick and disgusting. Fair enough, but don't take them the chance to mature sexually as they please. It doesn't necessarily screw up the child, it's not justified to do what we do.

My stance is reasonable, sadly the vast majority of people become insane and stupid when hearing "paedophilia" ...they are conditioned well.

Wrong... A child does not need to experience sex with an adult to mature sexually, I fooled around with girls my own age when I was young as just about any other person in the world has. That's part of sexually maturing. But a child does not need an adult to take them there. You act as if these pedophiles just want to love and care for these children as a parent would, that is wrong, they want to use them as sexual tools, period.

No, your stance is not reasonable, you propose children being taken advantage of. Do not blame the vast majority of people on being "insane and stupid" or "conditioned" because society doesn't support your views.

Call it any other name and it is still the same thing. The name means nothing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong... A child does not need to experience sex with an adult to mature sexually, I fooled around with girls my own age when I was young as just about any other person in the world has. That's part of sexually maturing. But a child does not need an adult to take them there. You act as if these pedophiles just want to love and care for these children as a parent would, that is wrong, they want to use them as sexual tools, period.

No, your stance is not reasonable, you propose children being taken advantage of. Do not blame the vast majority of people on being "insane and stupid" or "conditioned" because society doesn't support your views.

Call it any other name and it is still the same thing. The name means nothing. It does not need, but it should have the right o do if it desires it. Also, " they want to use them as sexual tools, period", that's a incredibly stupid view, do you know everyone on there....can you read minds?


I do not at all, you make a major difference between children and adults. That is weird. And it is true that most people can not keep a logical approach when talking about paedophilia. "We need to protect our children" is not a valuable argument, in fact it is very stupid...we protect everyone...why children especially?


Lets not forget that other societies functioned incredibly well with paedophilia being an accepted sexual behaviour.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does not need, but it should have the right o do if it desires it. Also, " they want to use them as sexual tools, period", that's a incredibly stupid view, do you know everyone on there....can you read minds?

I do not at all, you make a major difference between children and adults. That is weird. And it is true that most people can not keep a logical approach when talking about paedophilia. "We need to protect our children" is not a valuable argument, in fact it is very stupid...we protect everyone...why children especially?

Lets not forget that other societies functioned incredibly well with paedophilia being an accepted sexual behaviour.

And a child does not need many other rights, like the right to smoke, drive a car, own a gun, drink alcohol and vote, yet society realizes that children are not mentally and physically mature enough to do these things because they do not realize the consequences.

There is a MAJOR difference between children and adults and you know this, one being maturity and knowing the consequences of your actions and choices. You say people cannot take a logical approach towards pedophilia? WTF? I am giving you logical reasons why.

Societies functioned incredibly well with many things that are done away with. Rome wouldn't have been Rome without slaves; does that mean it was right? No it doesn't and society has realized that slavery is wrong and progressed beyond it. People used to be burned alive because of supposed devil worship and witchcraft, that is done away with too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"We need to protect our children" is not a valuable argument, in fact it is very stupid...we protect everyone...why children especially?


I thought it was obvious.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Lets not forget that other societies functioned incredibly well with paedophilia being an accepted sexual behaviour.

Just because its accepted that makes it ok? The Romans also used to watch people kill themselves for fun so that makes it ok as well.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I thought it was obvious.



Just because its accepted that makes it ok? The Romans also used to watch people kill themselves for fun so that makes it ok as well.

No, I am saying that the people that participated in it were not screwed up or taken advantage of.

Look, if the child want sto have sex it should be allowed to have it, if it is forced to have sex that is rape. Easy as that. Child and society protected while still having freedoms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am saying that the people that participated in it were not screwed up or taken advantage of.

And you asked me if I could read minds....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, if the child want sto have sex it should be allowed to have it, if it is forced to have sex that is rape. Easy as that. Child and society protected while still having freedoms.

And as responsible adults we do not allow children to do every little thing they want too. We realize maturity and realizing consequences generally comes with age. Where do you draw the line then? Why not allow a 7 year old to have sex or a 13 year old to vote?