And you must realise you can be immune to viruses.
And where the immunity is not innate, we can develop antidotes, but only if we face the virus head on; in South Africa the government denied the existance of HIV/AIDS and look at the country now.
Or is your concern that we will all contract the disease if exposed to it?
On a side note, it is reassuring to see the ‘might makes right’ brigade getting moralistic =D> .
“might makes right” is a moral statement. Who denies this?
That does not mean that I advocate using snipers to take these guys out. I will admit that it would be grand fun, however.
Why kill them when they would make good workers?
They should be claimed as government property, then forced to work in confinement.
Oppression!!!
Get dat bitch!
Well, that’s the more resonable approach, of course.
I think I was just fanatasizing about having a really good scope for my rifle. They are expensive, and this would justify the expense.
What would happen if a person’s immune system was overly tolerant and allowed all kinds of filth to grow?
I believe a society needs a certain amount of oppression, also known as “justice” when used properly. Some things should simply not be tolerated.
In ancient Isreal, for example, if a person sexed a horse or something like that – if they got caught, both they & the horse would be killed.
^
Ancient law within theocracies was very non-liberal.
Anti-liberalism is a two-edged sword…
Has it occurred to anyone that the stated desire of these people to legalise bestiality is just a bargaining chip? That they will, if given the opportunity, concede this right if they are granted the right to have sex with kids?
Or are they just that gross.
I don’t like to be judgemental or anything, but the idea of having sex with a horse is just gross. I do not see how this helps their cause, to ask for this. The harm to society is less, sure. But it’s really a lot grosser.
I guess you missed the part where I would Lower my aim from their head, then claim I was a bad aim. What would a protective mom that is bloodthirsty aim at on a man or woman for that matter? 
If its broke fix the broke part. If it offends you cut it off.
Been shooting pistols and rifles since the age of 5, If I can’t hit within in a square inch of what I am aiming for then, I best put those guns down and get a scattergun,I hate them, but at least you know you can’t miss.
Where there is a tip of an Iceberg you know the rest is pretty close by. even rotten scumbags are sheeple they will follow their leaders and be stupid.
Sexual attraction to animals happens because of child-hood experiences, usually, then later it may develop more…
Some dogs like to fuck people, if they get the oppertunity to.
^ It can be concentual, but is objectively “unnatural” because it cannot cause a pregnancy and there are some disease issues to be considered.
Who here knows about the bestiality laws in China, if any?
Hey Faust, Delboy, Dan.
Things are always this simple - The ethos of these lobbyists is very simple. ‘We want to fuck kids. We don’t want to go to jail.’ It is the illusion of “everybody can be reasonable and reasoned with. We are all one.” that makes situations complex. Polite society seeks to assimilate what it sees as abhorrent, but, for all that abhorrency - simular. Talk to it. Draw it back from the edge of the abyss and have tea with it. Make it nice.
I suspect that the “kill 'em all crew” see a paedophile not as a person but as a thing. There is no hatred there because, well, I don’t hate a street-dog, but I’d kill it in a trice if it threatened my son. You don’t hate an object for simply fulfilling its purpose. But you do render it inoperable if it threatens you.
This is why a monster in human form confuses people. “I am not a monster. They are a monster. But they look exactly like me. They act much like me. If they are a monster - Does that mean I might be a monster too…?”
Then they hate - they hate not because of the difference between themselves and the object of their hatred, but because of what they secretly suspect may be the simularity. In the act of hating they attempt to ostracize from themselves the abhorred trait.
The film Lolita was so shocking in its time I suspect not because of its portrayal of underage sexuality, but of its portrayal of what was a respectable, urbane and handsome man (ie the ideal posterboy of polite society) responding to that juvenile sexuality, of not being able to help himself.
But this hatred has no place to go. There own abhorence of violence leaves it with no where to go. So they are left with no choice but to attempt to assimulate. To be fair.
It would never get the tip of the iceberg - because the tip of the iceberg, if NAMBLA have any brains at all, would be beyond reproach, ‘Nobly’ restraining themselves whilst the ‘temporary’ legal nicities were being debated. “Oh the sacrifice”… Etc. “But we deeply respect the law” “We do not wish to be part of an immoral practice - we only ask the right to question current models of society…” etc.
Whiter than white, with chrome-plated smiles.
You compare it to organized crime. This is a mistake. The actual crimes in the case of organized crime can be imagined. There is always a reasonably clear-cut victim, and a perp. With sex and children, things can get blurred.
You know where you are with crime. We see someone get shot on telly every day, we idly fantasize about shooting our boss, and suffer only the mildest pangs of conscience. Stealing - we’ve all nicked something in our time - and secretly applaud a good bank-robbery plan, wether on the screen or in real-life. Even at a push, a little hanky-panky tough sex fantasy - not quite rape - but near enough to get the adrenaline going.
But sex with a child, hurting a child, this falls under the ‘doesn’t bear imagining’ catagory of human action. That’s the problem.
Children are surprisingly strong. It would take quite an effort to hold one down, unless they were very young. Make you quite sweaty perhaps. You might have to punch them to shut them up. Or threaten to kill their mum and dad. Then you’ll have to get their little clothes off. Get yours off too. You’ll look at the bare terror on their innocent little faces, convince yourself they like it, want it - Or just get off on the power trip, the eagerness to break something so untouched, so fragile. Whatever - You’ll get hard. And then you’ll put your cock into their mouth - prising it open perhaps - telling them not to scream, not to bite or you’ll hurt them, hurt them bad. Then you’ll fuck them, maybe in the ass.
Horrible even to imagine something like that. Even as I wrote I was aware of something inside me staying aloof - saying “not me not me - only for effect only for effect.” Why. Hume I think says we are only a bunch of remembered bundles of sensations, some kind of theatre. If that is so then there is not much difference, except in resolution of sensation, between imagining an event or action, and actually physically enacting that action. Or at least the two are near enough to make ourselves uncomfortable. And the human mind is very good at ‘skipping over’ what makes it uncomfortable.
I would say that to your average Joe or Jill on the street the actual act of paedophillic sex is so disturbing as to be something they cannot allow themselves even to imagine in depth. Lest the imagined sin somehow stick. Hell - I have dreams I remember just as vividly as what I catagorize as ‘real’ events in my life. Who is to say my identity such as it is does not dangle any less from these unreal memories than from the real…?
No-one allows themselves to even imagine the act. They shy away from admitting there are people around who walk like them, talk like them and derive enjoyment from this unimaginable act. This leaves society weak in its face. This leaves the reasonable man vunerable to manipulation.
Don’t guess at what I am Faust, and I will do you the same courtesy.
Yes - but these are minded viruses DelBoy, and they don’t even register as viral. Stupidly - Freedom of speech and all that - we don’t believe that words can hurt us. But of course they can.
And Delboy - I am not a might-makes-rightist.
I am a father.
Jon.
At some point, one can over-analyze anything. There is a qualitative difference between knee-jerk reaction and measured deliberate response. I have no need to “justify” my feelings toward pedophilia, or to be overly concerned that I might harm a pedophile’s ‘delicate psyche’. There are some human acts that go beyond the pale, and to become paralyzed in analysis is just societal overkill. Fuck that. Find 'em, make sure of their guilt, and put 'em down.
Is this being atavistic? You damned betcha. Is there anything more atavistic than desiring to hurt a child? How damned simple does it have to get before one acts?
Hello F(r)iends,
You fools! You tolerant fools!
You imagine that it is impossible for a violent party to gain mass appeal. “The Nazis could never garner so much support in today’s world” you think to yourselves as you conveniently ignore the mass appeal that terrorists in the Mid East have garnered. Some of you are so disillusioned you imagine that some acts are not violent. You swallow the propaganda and things like child rape are rephrased “making love to a child”. Things like suicide terrorist bombers are renamed freedom fighters or “expressions of outrage against oppression”.
You imagine that all manner of evils could never happen in our polite society because people are innately good.
You fools! Tolerance will get you killed too.
I was a father.
-Thirst
Good to see all the hard-talkin’, no-nonsense, ass-whuppin’ pragmatists have actually addressed my argument, rather than assuming that I’m trying to rationalise the situation - or assuming that I’m trying to put principle over reality or whatever.
You mean like Bin Laden, the former CIA asset in Afghanistan, who was called a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was helping the US against the Soviets but was conveniently renamed when the USSR collapsed?
Hello F(r)iends,
Do people never switch sides in your world?
Do people never go bad in your world?
Do people never betray in your world?
Are people never backstabbed in your world?
Are people never disenchanted with each other in your world?
Because in the world that I observe, best friends kill each other for one woman, nevermind a whole country…
I don’t know what I would do to someone that hurt my child.
-Thirst
I do not agree. Give the devil a voice, you will be forced to hear it.
Tab - you express yourself here to be known, or for your expression to be known. If you are just blowing smoke, then I am not to blame for getting the wrong impression. Most people think of these types as vermin - figuratively. I have no idea what all this pontificating is about, but I see no direct relationship between your posts and the issue.
I am only partially in the “shoot’em” crowd, but a person is a thing. I have no problem with denial here. Person, thing - it is you that is making assumptions. I’d be glad to whack’em either way.
I do not see anyone here who is actually confused. You are just making stuff up to argue against.
Verbiage.
You seriously think that a political party with only 3 known members is going to do jack?
If that’s the case, there’s a helluva lot more political parties you ought to be banning.
Hello F(r)iends,
People prioritize!
Woman and children first…
-Thirst
Faust: You’re the ones saying - give 'em a party, allow them to speak. I’m just saying that’s a bad idea. And trying to say why.
“Most people think of them as vermin”. But how many have actually met and talked to a practicing Paedophile. What if they were nice…?
“Verbiage.” That’s a new one, I’ll give you that. I am cut. I bleed. Boo-hoo. Compete you aged dissembler, compete. 
I happen to like “verbiage”. I think it says something.
I am not saying “give them a party” - necessarily. I am saying that the goal should be to get rid of these people - either by death or by jail. Exactly how is a matter of strategy. Law enforcement can adopt more than one strategy - in many cases there is more than one to choose from.
Allowing this party is not the alpha and omega - it is part of a larger picture.
That’s what I mean by “simplistic” - to isolate one act.
And to talk about the types in society, or on this board, rather than to address the issue.
Allowing the party does not condone the acts and is not necessarily a way of saying “we’ll be reasonable”. It can easily be a way of saying “We want to know who you are, and who your friends are”. This is an oft-used, legitimate and effective law enforcement technique - you seem to be unfamiliar with it. The “type” we should be focussing on is the type of law enforcement official and the “type” of budget they have to do their jobs.
I don’t care if a pedophile is “nice” - I don’t see anyone here who does. You simply introduce this to knock it apart.
Monsters? Who cares about that? - if you think it’s a bad thing that some grownups wish to exploit children this way, the rest is rhetoric. Pedophila is illegal in The Netherlands. This court is not ruling on that issue, but on the issue of political parties. These are two different things. It is suggesting that the Dutch people tighten up their laws. These people are not so squeaky clean - they are not getting their funding from the Red Cross.
I think anyone can imagine these crimes. It doesn’t take much. I think that the cops would be able to overcome any handicap that prevents them from doing their job. It’s simply a crime. We can’t allow ourselves to imagine the act? Where do you live, man? I don’t have to do too much imagining. I know plenty of kids who have been sexually abused. I can’t believe that most people cannot say the same thing.
Is this simply naive?