or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dutch perverts go too far....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dutch perverts go too far....

post #1 of 184
Thread Starter 
Apologizes for the flak I will undoubtedly get over the title but this makes me

The Dutch have allowed a group of paedophiles to form a legitimate political party.

Among this group of sickos agenda is the following: to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography and sex with animals.

I also heard a radio interview just now with one of these pervs and he stated that 12 (and younger) was not too you with the words "if they are happy having sex at that age then I am happy". He also called for violent sado-masochistic pornography to be broadcast on State Television.

The group's stated agenda is to "break the "negative" stigma surrounding paedophilia by getting into parliament."

He should come round to visit me - I'll help break his stigma and show him some SM at the same time. He'd probably enjoy it though.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 184
The Dutch have not allowed it, the Dutch COURTS have allowed it. Our own courts are not that far behind.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 184
Bullshit, Nick.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #4 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Bullshit, Nick.

Bullshit yourself. Our own courts are making sexual decisions a due process matter as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 184
Groups that advocate the lowering of the age of consent and the reduction of anti-pornography laws are not illegal in the US. NAMBLA is not illegal, for example. We don't have much in the way of political parties, outside of Rs and Ds, so I don't know if they'd try to form a political party. But the groups exist in the US and are not illegal. Nor should they be, IMO.
post #6 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Groups that advocate the lowering of the age of consent and the reduction of anti-pornography laws are not illegal in the US. NAMBLA is not illegal, for example. We don't have much in the way of political parties, outside of Rs and Ds, so I don't know if they'd try to form a political party. But the groups exist in the US and are not illegal. Nor should they be, IMO.

Is Paedophilia illegal though?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #7 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Is Paedophilia illegal though?

Most certainly.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #8 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Bullshit yourself. Our own courts are making sexual decisions a due process matter as well.

Nick

To the point of consent. Any claim otherwise is just conservative lip service.

And note that courts have defined age of consent fairly narrowly, so unless we have a sudden swing where people actually BELIEVE that pubescent and pre-pubescent children are fully actualized, this set up is not going to change (and to be honest, there is enough scientific evidence to support it not changing)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #9 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Most certainly.

Well it's not the same thing then is it - this Dutch group are self-confessed paedophiles and are fighting to reduce what they see as a stigma against their activities.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Is Paedophilia illegal though?

It is, but advocating for it is not. Just like advocating for pot use is not illegal.

The Dutch courts did not legalize paedophilia, they legalized the right to for a political party to advocate for the legalization of paedophilia. As BRussell mentioned, NAMLA is not illegal and if they wanted to form a political party, I'm sure our courts would allow it under due process and free speech. You two can call bullshit all you want but it is true.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
To the point of consent. Any claim otherwise is just conservative lip service.

The courts are applying due process. Look up Lawrence and due proces if you don't understand what the hell that means.

Quote:
And note that courts have defined age of consent fairly narrowly, so unless we have a sudden swing where people actually BELIEVE that pubescent and pre-pubescent children are fully actualized, this set up is not going to change (and to be honest, there is enough scientific evidence to support it not changing)...

If you think the courts will rule that a 12 year old can submit to her own abortion, but not to the sex related to it soon, then you just don't follow the cases and reasoning much. On sexual matters, the courts have gone beyond equal protection, they have applied due process and that is a much different and higher standard.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It is, but advocating for it is not. Just like advocating for pot use is not illegal.

The Dutch courts did not legalize paedophilia, they legalized the right to for a political party to advocate for the legalization of paedophilia. As BRussell mentioned, NAMLA is not illegal and if they wanted to form a political party, I'm sure our courts would allow it under due process and free speech. You two can call bullshit all you want but it is true.

Nick

I'm not calling BS or not calling it, I know nothing of the situation in the US so I leave that to you.

Personally I think that this distinction between advocating and actively doing IS actually BS though. It is a hypocrisy. If I got up tomorrow and 'advocated' for terrorist attacks, say, then the distinction would pretty soon break down.

So the real question is: what is morally more (or less) tolerable: blowing people up or buggering underage children? I am not the one making a distinction - the law is - otherwise I would be able to stand up and call for terrorist attacks on Downing Street.

If advocating one of these is ok and the other not then it implies a value distinction which I would say does not exist.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #13 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If you think the courts will rule that a 12 year old can submit to her own abortion, but not to the sex related to it soon, then you just don't follow the cases and reasoning much.

That's fucked up too then....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #14 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
And note that courts have defined age of consent fairly narrowly

Have they?
post #15 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Well it's not the same thing then is it - this Dutch group are self-confessed paedophiles and are fighting to reduce what they see as a stigma against their activities.

And they have a right to fight for that. They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #16 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
And they have a right to fight for that. They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight.

Very interesting. Why not?
post #17 of 184
What makes you think that this political party will be any more successful than the dozen-person Nazi and Socialist parties here in the US that try to put some whacko on the ballot every four years?

Oh sorry, it's a slippery slope.
post #18 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I'm not calling BS or not calling it, I know nothing of the situation in the US so I leave that to you.

Personally I think that this distinction between advocating and actively doing IS actually BS though. It is a hypocrisy. If I got up tomorrow and 'advocated' for terrorist attacks, say, then the distinction would pretty soon break down.

Well in the U.S. we try to be very clear on the distinction between speech and actions. However even monitoring of speech sometimes is a touchy subject here. This is why there have been all the wonderful Bush bashing threads related to terrorism prevention. People aren't being arrested but they are being "spied" upon if the government tracks international calls coming into the U.S. for example.

As you note, 2+2 usually equals 4. You want to prevent terrorism, monitor the people advocating terrorism. You want to prevent paedophilia, you monitor the people advocating for it. However individual rights and freedoms are advocated for so strongly (at least in the U.S.) that the people basically become ungovernable.

Quote:
So the real question is: what is morally more (or less) tolerable: blowing people up or buggering underage children? I am not the one making a distinction - the law is - otherwise I would be able to stand up and call for terrorist attacks on Downing Street.

If advocating one of these is ok and the other not then it implies a value distinction which I would say does not exist.

I do believe that there is a distinction between speech and actions, though they do often follow each other. My view is that when you publicly advocate for certain illegal positions, you shouldn't be upset when the public feels the need to monitor and insure you aren't actually undertaking those illegal acts. You should be able to walk down Downing Street advocating for terrorist attacks. What you should not do is be pissed off when the government gets a warrent and checks your accounts to see if you are buying explosives. You shouldn't be pissed off if they monitor incoming wire transactions from foreign countries to see if anyone is getting the money to undertake such actions either.

Just my two cents.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Is Paedophilia illegal though?

Paedophilia in a legal sense is a matter of definition and can easily be redefined by courts. Once/if the age of consent is lowered, then it is no longer legally paedophilia but acts between persons of consenting age. Other definitions are being successfully challenged and changed, so this should not be unexpected.

As a mental disorder, this can also be redefined by matter of a vote or decision by a professional body. Again, this has happened with other sexual behaviors which were once considered deviant.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #20 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I'm not calling BS or not calling it, I know nothing of the situation in the US so I leave that to you.

Personally I think that this distinction between advocating and actively doing IS actually BS though. It is a hypocrisy. If I got up tomorrow and 'advocated' for terrorist attacks, say, then the distinction would pretty soon break down.

So the real question is: what is morally more (or less) tolerable: blowing people up or buggering underage children? I am not the one making a distinction - the law is - otherwise I would be able to stand up and call for terrorist attacks on Downing Street.

If advocating one of these is ok and the other not then it implies a value distinction which I would say does not exist.

If you don't seperate avocation from action, then you would never be able to change any law - because it would be illegal to try.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #21 of 184
Good for the Dutch. Actually, very few laws exist that limit free and/or political speech, and that's a positive thing. People who oppose this should really think twice.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #22 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If you think the courts will rule that a 12 year old can submit to her own abortion, but not to the sex related to it soon, then you just don't follow the cases and reasoning much. On sexual matters, the courts have gone beyond equal protection, they have applied due process and that is a much different and higher standard.

Nick

But that's not what the courts have ruled. Parental notification requirements are allowed as long as there is an exception for cases where the parent is the one who made the child pregnant or is otherwise abusive. In such cases, an exception can be granted by a judge on a case-by-case basis. As long as such an exception is allowable, parental notification requirements have been approved.
post #23 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The courts are applying due process. Look up Lawrence and due proces if you don't understand what the hell that means.



If you think the courts will rule that a 12 year old can submit to her own abortion, but not to the sex related to it soon, then you just don't follow the cases and reasoning much. On sexual matters, the courts have gone beyond equal protection, they have applied due process and that is a much different and higher standard.

Nick

That isn't true Nick. Due process is only applied when the partners are consenting adults.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #24 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Very interesting. Why not?

Freedom of speech is there, among other reasons, to let you make your case for what you believe in. It's obviously not a guarantee you can or will sway people to accept the beliefs you espouse.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #25 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Freedom of speech is there, among other reasons, to let you make your case for what you believe in. It's obviously not a guarantee you can or will sway people to accept the beliefs you espouse.

But you said they don't have the "right" to win. That isn't the same as they aren't guaranteed to win. What if they do sway enough people to change the law?
post #26 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But you said they don't have the "right" to win. That isn't the same as they aren't guaranteed to win. What if they do sway enough people to change the law?

I think shetline may be using the historical term Right, meaning in the Right...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #27 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think shetline may be using the historical term Right, meaning in the Right...

Based on his sentence ("They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight.") I don't think so.
post #28 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That isn't true Nick. Due process is only applied when the partners are consenting adults.

Due process has nothing to do with adults.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #29 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But that's not what the courts have ruled. Parental notification requirements are allowed as long as there is an exception for cases where the parent is the one who made the child pregnant or is otherwise abusive. In such cases, an exception can be granted by a judge on a case-by-case basis. As long as such an exception is allowable, parental notification requirements have been approved.

All you have to do now is show how notification is the same as consent.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But you said they don't have the "right" to win. That isn't the same as they aren't guaranteed to win. What if they do sway enough people to change the law?

Then the laws would change. Likewise, if a group who advocates mass suicide for the entire country manages to persuade enough people that this is a great idea, the entire populace would be shot at dawn the day after the law is passed. I would lay nearly equal odds on either outcome.

What would you otherwise suggest? Pre-emptively blocking free speech whenever you decide that you can't except the possible, even if extremely remote, conseqences of a particular point of view you don't approve of actually catching on and becoming popular?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #31 of 184
For 1000s of years people married 9 year olds and they got pregnant after their first period. Let's not forget Mary the mother of Jesus....
No one called Joseph a pedophile or pervert in the bible. Indeed the bible is full of sex with the underaged.

I do not condone this but if you are a Christian it is hard to condemn it, because god is very clearly on the side of the pedophiles.
post #32 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Then the laws would change.

So they do "have a right to succeed in their fight" then.
post #33 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
I do not condone this but if you are a Christian it is hard to condemn it, because god is very clearly on the side of the pedophiles.

God seems quite happy to hand out young, untouched girls as prizes for victorious battle in the Name of God, a nice little prize to be claimed after mercilessly, in the Name of God, slaughtering everyone else, down to the last baby boy, who might have survived a battle.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #34 of 184
Gosh...it only took 29 posts this time.

post #35 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So they do "have a right to succeed in their fight" then.

What are you getting at? Are you just being obtuse about a simple matter of the usage of words like "right", or do you think you've got some great "Ah, hah! I gotcha!" you're building up to? I asked you a simple, straight forward question which you simply ignored.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #36 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
What are you getting at? Are you just being obtuse about a simple matter of the usage of words like "right", or do you think you've got some great "Ah, hah! I gotcha!" you're building up to?

I'm not "getting at" or "building up to" anything other than a clarification (well, correction I guess) of your statement that "They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight."
post #37 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Gosh...it only took 29 posts this time.


And I had nothing to do with it....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #38 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
And I had nothing to do with it....

Seg, you are far too modest. We all know of your own special Reality Distortion Field (tm).
post #39 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not "getting at" or "building up to" anything other than a clarification (well, correction I guess) of your statement that "They don't, however, have a right to succeed in their fight."

Oh, come on. It's not that complicated. Free speech gives you the right to advocate whatever you wish to advocate, no matter how unpopular. There is no "right" -- meaning no guaranteed assurance your advocacy will gain any traction -- of victory in your quest to persuade others. You have your right at a taking a shot for success, and to openly take that shot, but no right to expect to succeed. Is that so difficult to grasp?

If you're simply having a problem with my usage of the word "right", then simply f*cking spit it out, instead of going through this GD annoying "So, they do have a right, huh? So, they don't have a right, huh?" BS.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #40 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
My view is that when you publicly advocate for certain illegal positions, you shouldn't be upset when the public feels the need to monitor and insure you aren't actually undertaking those illegal acts. You should be able to walk down Downing Street advocating for terrorist attacks. What you should not do is be pissed off when the government gets a warrent and checks your accounts to see if you are buying explosives. You shouldn't be pissed off if they monitor incoming wire transactions from foreign countries to see if anyone is getting the money to undertake such actions either.

I actually agree with this - from the Government's pov they should be monitoring people like me if they publicly espouse certain views. To fail do so would be more dereliction of duty.

I think my objection in these matters would be if my rights did not increase with the pervs. For example, if they achieved the right to, say, molest small children then I would be happy with this if I had simultaneously increased rights to blow their heads off if they tried it on mine.

This doesn't often seem to be the case - here in Europe anyway. There was a famous recent case where the rights of burglars were increased in some way which resulted in a householder being jailed for shooting one who was then able to sue.

Often we see the rights of one party - often this is allied to Political Correctness which is a particularly pernicious aberration - increased to the detriment of others who may well be the victims of these parties.

So, give these pervs their political party - but I would ask, where is the anti-perv gunslingers party?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dutch perverts go too far....