Paedophile party allowed to run for election

Originally posted by PVS
you implied it clearly. by saying that the justification for the line given in the age law is 'evolution' CLEARLY indicates that you feel that this line is a product of a realisation of absolute moral code. thus the lack of consideration that the line may be just as well placed at 15 or 13.

she was an anomoly. bringing up a rare exception does not prove a thing. most 15-16 year old girls are able to give birth. there are some late bloomers, of coarse, but the vast majority can, just as many if not most 14 year olds can.
nature decided the age range. in fact, we seem to be evolving in a direction where that age range is getting lower. some blame the hormones they put in milk, but its still change. nature has set its own age range. thats just a single point to illustrate that the laws we place on age have nothing to do with anything absolute, which you contradict completely...

the point is that you cannot logically tag it as "wrong" any more than you can place the same lable on a 16 year old or even 18 year old having sex. simple as that. the only line is the one which society's opinions can meet on. some thought younger, some thought older, they settled on 16 consentual and 18 absolute. since you agree with this law, you declare yourself master of reality and call it "progression". i think your conclusion is mindblowingly pretentious and utter horseshit. is that clear enough? point taken?

I didnt say some. i said most. now read it again, as i typed it and meant it, THEN address the point

our very existance as a society is completely a product of opinion.
some however consider their opinion to be absolute truth while others acknowledge that its an opinion, even if universally accepted.

I did not, I said progression/evolving as in moving forward, not reached perfection.

I've noticed something, you never gave a reason why this law should be passed like Bardock and Urizen did. All your doing is taking the philosophical broo-ha-ha route of 'what is right' 'what is wrong' good/evil, 'who's to judge' etc.

So state your case why a 12 year old should be allowed to have sex with an adult and why child pornography should be allowed and I will be happy to discuss why I think the opposite.

Originally posted by Robtard
So state your case why a 12 year old should be allowed to have sex with an adult and why child pornography should be allowed and I will be happy to discuss why I think the opposite.

how about i dont "STATE MY CASE" since i wouldnt impose my own morals on others. i feel that 14, 16, and even 18 are too young to be a proper parent, however i feel that they should be allowed to have sex, since they will anyway.
should society "evolve" to my sensibilities? oh thats right, im not the master of reality here, you are.

im sure you would love for me to just say that i support kiddie porn and babies ****ing, as it would be easy to argue against. only trouble is i never said anything about it. sorry to rape your loaded black and white argument. should there be a law against that?

Originally posted by PVS
how about i dont "STATE MY CASE" since i wouldnt impose my own morals on others. i feel that 14, 16, and even 18 are too young to be a proper parent, however i feel that they should be allowed to have sex, since they will anyway.
should society "evolve" to my sensibilities? oh thats right, im not the master of reality here, you are.

im sure you would love for me to just say that i support kiddie porn and babies ****ing, as it would be easy to argue against. only trouble is i never said anything about it. sorry to rape your loaded black and white argument. should there be a law against that?

Then why in the f@ck are you debating against me? The topic of this thread is pedophilia and Bardock and Urizen have giving reasons why they think it should be acceptable and allowed and that is why/what I am debating against them.

I could care less what you support, but state what you support and why you support it. Look back at my post with Bardock and Urizen, have I ever taken a 'morality', 'religious' or 'spiritual' stance to why I think pedophilia is wrong? No, I have not.

[edited]
What you said: "im sure you would love for me to just say that i support kiddie porn and babies ****ing, as it would be easy to argue against" Why do you think that would be easy to argue against?

Originally posted by Robtard
Then why in the f@ck are you debating against me? The topic of this thread is pedophilia and Bardock and Urizen have giving reasons why they think it should be acceptable and allowed and that is why I am debating against them.

no, the topic is whether or not a political party based on pedophilia should be allowed to run for election.

Originally posted by Robtard
I could care less what you support, but state what you support. Look back at my post with Bardock and Urizen, have I ever taken a 'morality', 'religious' or 'spiritual' stance to why I think pedophilia is wrong? No, I have not.

as per topic, i do not support the forbiding of a political party as it is a direct contradiction and bastardisation of democracy to do so.

...and to address your edit:

Originally posted by Robtard

What you said: "im sure you would love for me to just say that i support kiddie porn and babies ****ing, as it would be easy to argue against" Why do you think that would be easy to argue against?

because then you can attack my character and very reason for debating as you have others who disagree with you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you just say sh!t like that for a response to rile people up? I noticed you almost always take the negative side of things. Like the gay marriage/gay rights thread... Aren't you against gay marriages? Didn't we debate on that before?

The reason I say this, if you are not serious and you really do not think 12 year old should be having sex with adults, please just say so. I do not find being 'trolled' along funny, especilly with pedophilia as the subject.

so those who fall on the other side of your imaginary wall in your imaginary topic can either be written off as psychotic peadophiles or just common trolling with no rhyme or reason.

Originally posted by PVS
no, the topic is whether or not a political party based on pedophilia should be allowed to run for election.

as per topic, i do not support the forbiding of a political party as it is a direct contradiction and bastardisation of democracy to do so.

Spin spin spin... That was original yes, but as far as the last 13 pages or so it has been why should pedophilia be allowed and you know this, since you sided (or did you?) with Bardock's views when you started debating pedophilia with me.

So, are you ready to state why you think pedophilia should be allowed as Bardock & Urizen have or just going to take philosophical shots like 'who's to judge'? Also, feel free to state why you think it shouldn't be allowed of course.

Originally posted by PVS
...and to address your edit:

because then you can attack my character and very reason for debating as you have others who disagree with you.

so those who fall on the other side of your imaginary wall in your imaginary topic can either be written off as psychotic peadophiles or just common trolling with no rhyme or reason.

Really, I have giving reasons and examples of why I think it is wrong for the last 13+ pages without just saying something along the lines of "Pedophilia is just wrong and anyone who wants to **** kids is a moral-less degenerate." Others have though. Spinning some more I see.... Have you been following the debate?

What is your point then for debating with me if you are unwilling to take a stance, support that stance and give reasons why you support it? I disagree with Bardock's & Urizen's views, but at least they support those views and have given reasons why they support those views.

What imaginary wall? Pedophilia exist.

Originally posted by Robtard
Spin spin spin... That was original yes, but as far as the last 13 pages or so it has been why should pedophilia be allowed and you know this, since you sided (or did you?) with Bardock's views when you started debating pedophilia with me.

spin? its spin to point out that you are factually wrong in declaring the topic to be general paedophilia? ok, whatever champ

Originally posted by Robtard
So, are you ready to state why you think pedophilia should be allowed as Bardock & Urizen have or just going to take philosophical shots like 'who's to judge'? Also, feel free to state why you think it shouldn't be allowed of course.

do i think a mental disorder should be allowed? do we as a society have the ability to allow problems to exist? or do they just occur?

Originally posted by Robtard
Spinning some more I see.... Have you been following the debate?

Originally posted by Robtard
What is your point then for debating with me if you are unwilling to take a stance, support that stance adn give reasons why you support it? I disagree with Bardocks & Urizens views, but at least they support those views and have giving reasons why.

a stance? give me yours. all i can see is that you do not support a mental condition which compulses one to have sexual attraction for children. not just someone who is not of legal age, which you instantly and ignorantly tag as "peadophile", but rather one who is attracted to features which are clearly underdeveloped/undeveloped. a peadophile doesnt give a shit about actual age. thats just a number.

Originally posted by Robtard
Spin spin spin... That was original yes, but as far as the last 13 pages or so it has been why should pedophilia be allowed and you know this, since you sided (or did you?) with Bardock's views when you started debating pedophilia with me.

So, are you ready to state why you think pedophilia should be allowed as Bardock & Urizen have or just going to take philosophical shots like 'who's to judge'? Also, feel free to state why you think it shouldn't be allowed of course.

Well, you don't really think either of them would argue for pedophillia, do you?

*quitely slips aways, being Dutch and ashamed....*

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously no, and do you think that will happen and the vast majority of people will be for killing peole because of eye color? You are reaching and it is getting silly.

Duno what this is about.....

Originally posted by Robtard
Because most likely the child would be taken advantage of... I have reasoned and giving you examples of why restrictions exist on children, they are not mature enough to make every little decision for themselves.

1) How can you take advantage of someone who WANTS the same thing that you do ?

2) You gave us examples of how restrictions exist on teenagers in areas such as using a gun,etc. But you have made no successful analogies or given any real evidense as to why restrictions should exist on a relationship between teenager and adult. :np:

Originally posted by Robtard
I have even asked you a hypothetical question trying to explain this to you. If you're parents allowed you to do whatever you wanted when you were a child, would you still be here? Would society even exist if no laws/restrictions existed on children's desires and actions?

Like I said....I had sex with a 24 year old when I was 15, and I'm still here today....I'm not a rare case either 🙄

Originally posted by Robtard
You fail to see this, your mindset of 'a 12 year old is mature enough to make his/her own choices and if they make the wrong one, then to back for them' is insane.

IT doesn't matter if thier mature enough to make thier own decisions (they shouldn't be restricted for everything though, that's absurd)...the question is whether or not Consent exists.

And you NEVER answer that question...you just keep blabbing about how you think since they're not mature enough, then there's no Consent. Please.....immature Consent, or mature Consent, are still CONSENT

the incorrect assumption: anyone who would sleep with a *insert age* is a peadophile. age, as a number, has nothing to do with it. a man who sleeps with a fully developed 14 year old is probably not a peadophile. he also may have no regard for commonly accepted standards of decency, and may deserve legal action taken upon him, but this has nothing to do with paedophilia and everything to do with statutory rape laws.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, you don't really think either of them would argue for pedophillia, do you?

They have... Bardock thinks a 12 year old should be allowed to have sex with and adult and Urizen thinks a 14 year old should be allowed. They have both given reasons why they think this shlould be acceptable and I have giveing reasons why I think it shouldn't. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by PVS
the incorrect assumption: anyone who would sleep with a *insert age* is a peadophile. age, as a number, has nothing to do with it. a man who sleeps with a fully developed 14 year old is probably not a peadophile. he also may have no regard for commonly accepted standards of decency, and may deserve legal action taken upon him, but this has nothing to do with paedophilia and everything to do with statutory rape laws.

Peadophilia is an adult attraction to a child; not to a teenager. The word peadophile is over used.

Originally posted by Robtard
They have... Bardock thinks a 12 year old should be allowed to have sex with and adult and Urizen thinks a 14 year old should be allowed. They have both given reasons why they think this shlould be acceptable and I have giveing reasons why I think it shouldn't. Am I wrong?

Well, that's not arguing for paedophilia though, that's arguing for the choice of a teenager. Just to be clear.

Is there a specific age where the term pedophile no longer applies?

Originally posted by Robtard
They have... Bardock thinks a 12 year old should be allowed to have sex with and adult and Urizen thinks a 14 year old should be allowed. They have both given reasons why they think this shlould be acceptable and I have giveing reasons why I think it shouldn't. Am I wrong?

No. But you have never proven that Consent doesn't exist in relationships between 14 year old and adult. You just keep pretending it doesn't by saying "its gross....14 year olds are too young...they're not mature enough...etc.etc."

Consent is just permission. That is all. You don't need maturity or wisdom to have it. You just need to want it and allow it, for it to be called Consent.

Originally posted by Alliance
Is there a specific age where the term pedophile no longer applies?

It's a pretty vague term anyways, but we are not arrguing that 30 year olds should have the right to have sex with 12 year olds against their will, but that the 12 year olds may choose what to do with their body.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Peadophilia is an adult attraction to a child; not to a teenager. The word peadophile is over used.

that is incorrect as well. lets say there are are 2 14 year olds, ok?
one is stacked like a supermodel, and the other is undeveloped/late bloomer.
paedophilia would attract someone to the late bloomer as they have the features of a child or adolescent. a peadophile, acting on such urges, would not even pay notice to the developed and seemingly mature 14 year old, even if told her age.

its a mental condition/disorder, not a preference for age. but i agree that the word is whored and all true meaning of it is drown out for the sake of political grandstanding. its just a buzz word now, like NAZI!!!! and MURDER!!!!. all factual meaning washed away and all thats left is a vacant word which is mostly used to command knee jerk reactions.

Originally posted by PVS
that is incorrect as well. lets say there are are 2 14 year olds, ok?
one is stacked like a supermodel, and the other is undeveloped/late bloomer.
paedophilia would attract someone to the late bloomer as they have the features of a child or adolescent. a peadophile, acting on such urges, would not even pay notice to the developed and seemingly mature 14 year old, even if told her age.

its a mental condition/disorder, not a preference for age. but i agree that the word is whored and all true meaning of it is drown out for the sake of political grandstanding. its just a buzz word now, like NAZI!!!! and MURDER!!!!. all factual meaning washed away and all thats left is a vacant word which is mostly used to command knee jerk reactions.

Okay....so If a 30 year old man is attracted to a 25 year old woman who looks like she's 13, is he a peadophile ?