A person that has sexual acts with a child which I consider 14 and younger is a predator i don’t give a hoot if they are in love with that kid, I don’t care how gentle they are, I don’t give a rats ass in hell if some dumb ass gov’t decides they want to pass laws to allow it. If you are an adult it is the responsibility of all adults to protect and nurture kids. Not molest even if the intent is love. Nothing good can come from such intimate acts, it will harm more often then not. Little bodies and minds should be allowed to grow with out stress and adult emotions foisted upon them.
My God kids see enough and learn enough crap. Protect them from this at least. and should I catch one in the act, he or she will have no more genitalia for the rest of their short lives.
Keep em where you can see them, protect the kids, let these people gather and protest and march at least we know they are not sodomizing some 5 yr old. They join these groups they sign up on lists what better way to keep track then let them feel comfortable about giving out their address. Then post the addresses in public places if a kid turns up missing or gets molested.
Typical liberal understanding of evil behavior. Must we understand these perverts? No
Children are just that, and cannot make a sound decision regarding sex until much older. This group books cruises to Mexico and other poor nations with the soul purpose of having sex with very young boys. Talk about expoitation.
Many Muslim’s condone Mohammed’s taking Aisha when she was 9. I believed that this was common during his time. It was not, 14 -16 the age, and only after the onset of menses. The odds are she never hit puberty and this may be the reason she never had children.
Children simply need time to mature before making decisions.
We never actually officially funded him personally. He sent many funds to the Mujahaden. Eventually he joined them. The only money he recieved from the CIA was in the form of weapons purchased by Indians from China with our money. LIbEralS are always shouting about how the CIA trained and had Osama on it’s payroll when they don’t even know the whole truth.
DH - what difference does it make? It’s merely expedience. He served a purpose. That he did not remain useful to us, and even that he turned “against” us (he was never for us, which doesn’t matter either) is not an indictment of our actions in the past. It’s just the way the game is played.
Generally, most here agree regarding pediphiles. Folks, read a few profiles regarding these animals. They are nice, they volunteer as Boy Scout Troops, are often clowns at children’s parties, some are married, some not. Some mother’s look the other way when daddy molests her child because she is afraid of losing a meal ticket. At times, some wives have no idea regarding what her pedophiliac husband is doing. Again, these predators are usually nice, charming, and entice children into the predator’s home. Think Michael Jackson.
They are quite simply dangerous, and if they have a voice, they will demand tolerance in our society.
Never mess with the children, they need protection. Schools try, but often parents do not follow through. Hence, NAMBA needs to remain illegal, as they will use economic incentives and any means at their disposal to engage in their sexual lust for children. I have had high school students whose mother’s sold them into prostitution for drugs. I have had high school students come to school crying after daddy had his “fun” with them. Charges were filed, this was ages ago, but because the mother would not file charges, the case was dropped. I believe this has changed.
At this point, be it my age, and lack of creative understanding, whatever, I have grown tired of the tolerant game. Some behaviors are simply evil and should not be allowed. This behavior sickens me.
Remember, I said women are also responsible, but how many women molest their children. I was pointing out that often it is daddy who does this and mommy looks the other way, neglect.
Remember, I am also sickened by the number of female pediphilles and how they often get of light compared to men. Mary Jane Laturno (sp) the recent busts involving women teachers molesting male students.
In a post with no argument, the conservative idealogue is king.
I mean, yes, we all agree that paedophiles are bad. But just saying how they’re evil fuckers doesn’t really address the problem of this political party, and whether or not they should be allowed to exist.
I have no problem with a party discussing their rights regarding adults. I do have a huge problem with a party that advocates abusing children and pediphilia is abuse. Children simply “haven’t got it together enough” to understand that the adult is mentally and probably physically damaging them for life. This is a issue of do we as a society allow a group that advocates such behavior to exist. My call is NO, as a mother.
I have zero problem with homosexual or bisexual individuals who chose this behavior. Touch a kid, and in my eyes you are dead meat. Lock up, and throw away the key, and I do mean for life as they always return to this behavior.
We are disucussing children being seduced by adults. What chance do children have. Zip. What chance does the adult have Royal Flush.
If we allow such an evil to exist in our society we condemn our children.
You can take you liberal semanitics regarding the party of pediphiles and tell this to your children, children which I doubt you have.
Okay, how about a young brother seduced by the nice Scout leader, priest, or neighbor. What would you do?
Should these people really have a party. NO.
The fact is, that pediphiles are never reformed, and I mean never. Throw away the key.
Okay. I’m sceptical about the wrongness of the double standard. I think there is a big difference between a man having sex with a fourteen year old girl and a woman having sex with a fourteen year old boy. I just do.
I still don’t understand exactly how a boy gets raped by a woman in the first place. As a practical matter. If we’re talking standard sexual intercourse.
Maybe that’s another thread.
As to the party - the court seems to be making a ruling on political parties and not a ruling on pedophilia. As such, it’s not really so controversial. There is nothing preventing the Netherlands from changing its laws, or its constitution, to prevent this party form being recognised. That part doesn’t seem very interesting. Court rulings like this are very common. They are pointing to flaws in the written statutes more than to any societal issue per se. That may be why no one is addressing this very much. There’s an easy fix.
Why is it that liberals always claim not to be liberal. If you are own it, and deal with it. I do regarding my prochoice and other stances, albeit, the lines have become blurred in recent years.
Folks, we are discussing our future, the children!
I wasn’t accusing you of being a liberal, I was only making an observation, just as you did.
I believe you when you say that you are a conservative. I also agree that unsupported assertions are boring.
Of course, we don’t need to provide too much support for this kind of thing…
Say that is taken under advisement and the law bent to accomodate this. It becomes okay for older women to liase with underage boys providing consent can be verified. Someone is bound to come along and say “Hey - that’s sex-yoo-al discrimination that is” blah blah. “I may be 40 but my 14 year old girlfriend and I are in love etc…”
I dunno - with you saying - “it’s not so contraversial” and the other guy saying “Hey they’ll never get any power so why bother opposing them” “there’s only three of them” etc…
I mean yeah - right, paedophillia making inroads onto the media stage, no biggie… Pass the Soma someone will you…?
Immorality is just a step-by-step process towards the final destination, that being:
Internal anarchy, uncontrollable desires, loss of self.
These uncontrolled desires then become controlled by the great tempter, “Satan”.
Ofcourse, God and Satan don’t exist now, do they?
And morality is unnatural, isn’t it?
And life is meaningless, isn’t it?
And there is not afterlife, so waste this life hedonistically, right?
Right?
Humanity does not know what “right” is.
They have deconstructed and corrupted it all.
Firstly, paedophilia is not the same as child molestation. One can be a paedophile and not sexually molest children. A paedophile is simply someone who is attracted to children - an urge they likely have no more control over than I have control over my being attracted to women (meaning that I cannot choose not to be heterosexual).
But ignoring that semantic point, I completely agree with you that child molestation is abuse and that it’s fully wrong. Nobody is going to argue with you there. I agree completely that children haven’t “got it together enough” in order to give consent for a sexual act. Hell, in the UK the age of consent in 16 and I’m not sure if 16, or even 18 year olds are responsible enough. So again, I’m not disputing anything you say there.
You are correct to say that the party advocates the legalisation of what you and I would term “abuse”. But we allow plenty of political parties to exist which would lobby for things we consider immoral - we certainly do in the UK at any rate. The ill-educated ramblings of the National Front and the British National Party are gravely offensive and some of the things they’ve said in my view are deeply, deeply immoral. So it would seem that SIMPLY because a political party advocates a position we deem to be immoral is not a sufficient reason to outlaw that political party.
IF I am correct in asserting that immorality is not a sufficient reason to outlaw a political party (I can further argue that case, if necessary) then we cannot simply outlaw this political party because they wish to legalise something immoral (a fact we both agree on - child molestation is wrong).
I think that a good standpoint which is relatively neutral is that you outlaw a political group if their actions are likely to “incite violence” or in this case, “incite child molestation”. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this group, a group with only three known members is vocal enough to change anything, or that it’s members are inciting child molestation. Thus, until we have reason to believe that they are doing such things, they should be allowed to exist.
I’m happy to hear you don’t have a problem with homosexuals or bisexuals, though I’m not sure if they “choose” their behaviour - the science is certainly inconclusive. But what I do know is that I did not choose to be a heterosexual and thus it seems reasonable to assume that the same applies to different sexual orientations. I completely agree with you that we ought to lock people up who “touch kids” - child molestation is completely wrong and nowhere have I said otherwise. Also, I believe there have been instances of child molesters reforming, but that’s irrelevent to this discussion.
Only if that evil has a reasonable chance of doing anything. We allow other evils, such as racist political parties, to exist.
I don’t have children, but that’s completely irrelevent. It’s not “liberal semantics” - I think it’s important to preserve ideals such a freedom of speech and association as much as is pragmatically possible. It is certainly pragmatically possible to allow this group to exist. If I did have kids, I hope they’d respect me for sticking by my principles, just as I’m sure you’d hope your kids respect you for sticking by yours.
I’d probably beat the crap out of the Scout leader, priest, or neighbour in question. But given that we’re not discussing an act of child molestation, and instead are discussing whether or not this party should be allowed to exist, this is completely irrelevent.
