Paedophile party allowed to run for election

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 [b]Everything. Consent is what separates sex from rape. ✅

What you are saying is just an opinion formed from tradition and bias. [/B]

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 [b]Everything. Consent is what separates sex from rape. ✅

What you are saying is just an opinion formed from tradition and bias. [/B]

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.

I hope you enjoy your stay in Hell

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"? [b]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. [/B]

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 [b]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. 😉 [/B]

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 [b]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. [/B]

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.

[b]Sex with consent is not Rape. Do you agree or disagree, and why? [/B]

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.