Paedophile party allowed to run for election

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.

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.

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 "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.