Paedophile party allowed to run for election

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 [b]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." [/B]

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.