Pedophiles : Shameless?

My recent title change motivated me to post about this :

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06071705.html

According to the article, those damn dirty Dutchies refuse to outlaw a political party that seeks to legalize child pornography among other morally reprehensible things. They claim that it's the right of the voters to judge the appeal of any party - which is actually pretty reasonable, and is the basis of Democracy. Still, the part that bugs me is that pedophiles are that shameless that they would create their own party. Those kid-fuckers should not have the balls to do something like that. Maybe Europe just needs Chris Hansen.

Visplane Overflow said:

My recent title change motivated me to post about this :

Two titles in and I'm still working on one!

I view it like I view the KKK marches that still happen in the US from time to time. Just because they have the right to be an organization (or in this case a political party) doesn't mean they'll change a damn thing. If they want to submit themselves to public scrutiny, that's their choice.

Dutch Court Approves Pedophile Political Party

...

The party, which has only three known members, seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12. They want to legalize child pornography and sex with animals.

EUMBLA... now with horse!

I think that any political party should be allowed to exist on any grounds. The competence of the voters should be enough to prevent the extremely insane parties from getting into power. This simplifies democracy. If democracy isn't enough to prevent this from happening then obviously the political party itself isn't the biggest problem.

As for why these people are this shameless, I don't know. But apparently there are people out there who truly believe that adult-child sex should be legal even though children aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of this and the ramifications for their sexual future can be devastating.

They have the right to platform this. They won't get any votes mind you.

It's interesting to me that the pedophiles would stand up for themselves in this way given that they are looked down upon almost universally. Bank has the right idea likening this to the KKK marches, they won't accomplish what they're after, in fact this will probably end up being counter-productive. And nothing of value was lost.

According to the pedopartij's Wikipedia page - "The party did not receive the 30 signatures from each to the 19 Dutch electoral regions it would need to get on the ballet for the 2006 elections." So their members/supporters are either too few in number or prefer to remain anonymous.

Assuming that even adults have the maturity to deal with sex is a dumb idea. It's a necessary idea, but a dumb one. People are dumb. I say "meh" to the whole thing.

I suppose it says something that we can have sex in most western countries long before we can drink or vote.

Anyway, these guys are being retarded, but what they're advocating is still so much less wrong than theocracies, dictatorships, countries where only the rich or men have rights, etc, etc. Nothing to worry about: they won't get what they want and they'll probably lose a few dozen friends too.

I don't see what's wrong with anyone forming a party if they want to. Since this is a democratic voting process we're talking about, they have basically no chance of getting any law into effect that goes against societal taboos. As the article stated, a whopping 82% of the country was adverse enough to their ideas as to want the government to intervene. And that doesn't count people who don't care but wouldn't vote anyway. There's no way in hell they'd make any kind of leeway at all. They're no different from one of those internet forums where people post their weird sexual fantasies.

And it's not like there aren't political parties in America just as bad. I'm sure there are a few whose main platform is based off of "kill all the <insert race here>".

Danarchy said:

I'm sure there are a few whose main platform is based off of "kill all the <insert race here>".

americannaziparty.com/]Funny you should mention...

The line between freedom of expression (including the right to organize in political parties) and breaking the law is very thin: e.g. in the USA it's perfectly OK to shave your head, weak suspenders and Doc Martens, yell "Sieg Heil! Aryans 88! 14 Words!" and give hate speeches vs Jews and Blacks, in the name of "freedom of expression".

Doing the same in modern Germany (at least as openly as in the USA) would have you arrested in 30 seconds. On the other hand, if you start speaking about terrorism and praising the 11/9 attacks in the USA as "well deserved", you will be taken pronto to Guantanamo Bay Prison and spend the rest of your days in an orange uniform, while doing the same in Germany or in most European countries would be met with mostly tepid reaction, indifference from the authorities, and even earn you some consents, depending on the local pro/anti American index.

It's exactly like the old motto "Each one channels water to his own mill".

It won't change anything since any votes they receive will be negligible at best, but they are correct that the ages of adult accountability need to go back to where they have always been until recent times. 12 is a good start, but them going for it from the sexual angle tends to discredit what would be an otherwise good move from an all-inclusive angle :\

Of course, personally, I think most people who get married before 35 or 40 are almost always some kind of idiots, but legally, there's no reason to act against people who have the capacity for that kind of relationship and are quite capable of handling that level of responsibility - that's for the person and other trustworthy family/friends around them to come to the best conclusion about. The backwards trend over the last century has had little but negative consequences.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: imagine a hypothetical political party that promotes the idea that people should be able to kill each other without recrimination, and it should be up to individual citizens to defend themselves against being killed (ie. murder made legal). If you also believe murder is immoral, should this party also be made illegal?

I'm having an interesting time imagining what a "vigorous and robust debate" would be like at their party conventions - the cleaners would have plenty to complain about in the morning.

I believe murder is immoral but would rather have a easily identified political party promoting that policy than have it's membership infiltrate and subvert other parties - as the religious right has done to the Republicans.

AndrewB said:

I think that any political party should be allowed to exist on any grounds. The competence of the voters should be enough to prevent the extremely insane parties from getting into power. This simplifies democracy. If democracy isn't enough to prevent this from happening then obviously the political party itself isn't the biggest problem.

As for why these people are this shameless, I don't know. But apparently there are people out there who truly believe that adult-child sex should be legal even though children aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of this and the ramifications for their sexual future can be devastating.

I have to agree with you there. It's not like they would be able to do anything.

Fraggle said:

Here's an interesting thought experiment: imagine a hypothetical political party that promotes the idea that people should be able to kill each other without recrimination, and it should be up to individual citizens to defend themselves against being killed (ie. murder made legal). If you also believe murder is immoral, should this party also be made illegal?

fraggle said:

If you also believe murder is immoral, should this party also be made illegal?

Murder is unethical. It's also illegal. But a party is certainly welcome to try to change the laws about it. I doubt they'd ever get a significant voter base, so in the end it doesn't matter.

The more outrageous an idea is, the less dangerous it is in open debate. Something like "legalize pot" is much less outrageous than "legalize murder", so you would get a fair amount of vote for the Pot Party, while you wouldn't get anything for the Murder Party. Neither are likely to win elections, but if the majority party is weak and needs to form a coalition, it could negotiate with the Pot Party for their support while it would never talk to the Murder Party.

fraggle said:

Here's an interesting thought experiment: imagine a hypothetical political party that promotes the idea that people should be able to kill each other without recrimination, and it should be up to individual citizens to defend themselves against being killed (ie. murder made legal). If you also believe murder is immoral, should this party also be made illegal?

Hypothetical? You just described Libertarianism.

I hope that's a joke. As far as I can tell I've never known a libertarian that believed murder should be legalized. Only thing they seem to be concerned with is legalizing drugs.

The closest party I've been able to relate myself to is the Libertarian party, but I find the majority of their primary goals aren't really that important at this point in time.

Visplane Overflow said:

My recent title change motivated me to post about this :

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06071705.html

According to the article, those damn dirty Dutchies refuse to outlaw a political party that seeks to legalize child pornography among other morally reprehensible things. They claim that it's the right of the voters to judge the appeal of any party - which is actually pretty reasonable, and is the basis of Democracy. Still, the part that bugs me is that pedophiles are that shameless that they would create their own party. Those kid-fuckers should not have the balls to do something like that. Maybe Europe just needs Chris Hansen.

Outlawing political parties is essentially letting the government tell people what opinions they are allowed to have. I don't think shutting up a few whining pedos is worth trampling all over the idea of political freedom, as tempting as it might be to shut them up.

Remember, thought != action. If these pedos go out and molest children they can be prosecuted as child molesters. All this party does is state an opinion. Even if it's a disgusting opinion, it's still just an opinion.

Nomad said:

I hope that's a joke. As far as I can tell I've never known a libertarian that believed murder should be legalized. Only thing they seem to be concerned with is legalizing drugs.

The closest party I've been able to relate myself to is the Libertarian party, but I find the majority of their primary goals aren't really that important at this point in time.

The Libertarian political movement as it exists today is essentially composed of Randroids and other extreme free-market cultists. Imagine what an Ayn Randian society would be like in real life (hint: Weyland-Yutani Corporation). You do not want to vote Libertarian.

Well IMO I don't think any form of pornography should be illegal. It may still be vile and disgusting, but the viewer isn't the one committing the abuse. The person that does commit abuse should obviously be locked away for a million years(with a guy named Bubba), but looking at some pictures doesn't really hurt anyone.

Going with the murder analogy, if someone fills their hard drive up with videos of people being murdered, nobody will come and take them away saying they're probably going to kill a bunch of people. Yet if they have even one picture of a kid being abused, they'll claim they pose a risk to children. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me, plus I'm not a big fan of these slippery slope "might cause a crime" laws.

Prince of Darkness said:

America against zink party.

Nomad said:

I hope that's a joke. As far as I can tell I've never known a libertarian that believed murder should be legalized. Only thing they seem to be concerned with is legalizing drugs.

Well as I stated before, the Libertarian party basically advocates Anarchism. According to Anarchism, people don't need any kind of government or laws. If a nutter tries to kill you, you are in full rights to gun them down. If they manage to kill someone, then naturally the people will form a lynch mob and get him. The great lie of Anarchism is that there is no kind of law involved. In truth, it creates pure mob rule, and with no trials or anything, the majority will end up just killing anyone they disagree with.

That's about as accurate as saying Democrats advocate socialism.

Danarchy said:

In truth, it creates pure mob rule, and with no trials or anything, the majority will end up just killing anyone they disagree with.

Which, in turn, will create the ground for people with greater skill at defending themselves and/or attacking others to increase their power and influence, and even get other people to willingly serve them, thus creating pockets of localized rule and authority, which will then expand and....hey...wait a moment...

fraggle said:

Here's an interesting thought experiment: imagine a hypothetical political party that promotes the idea that people should be able to kill each other without recrimination, and it should be up to individual citizens to defend themselves against being killed (ie. murder made legal). If you also believe murder is immoral, should this party also be made illegal?

If that was actually passed, then we have bigger problems to worry about than the original people to come up with the idea.

Abyssalstudios1 said:

If that was actually passed, then we have bigger problems to worry about than the original people to come up with the idea.

Apparently the entire point of my post went completely over your head. It was a *hypothetical* scenario and I wasn't interested in whether such a party would be elected or pass that law. The actual policies in the scenario are completely irrelevant, in fact.

Scet said:

Well IMO I don't think any form of pornography should be illegal. It may still be vile and disgusting, but the viewer isn't the one committing the abuse. The person that does commit abuse should obviously be locked away for a million years(with a guy named Bubba), but looking at some pictures doesn't really hurt anyone.

Going with the murder analogy, if someone fills their hard drive up with videos of people being murdered, nobody will come and take them away saying they're probably going to kill a bunch of people. Yet if they have even one picture of a kid being abused, they'll claim they pose a risk to children. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me, plus I'm not a big fan of these slippery slope "might cause a crime" laws.

Actually, the main argument against child pornography isn't that it encourages people to abuse children, but rather that it creates a market for the material. If you have a situation where it's legal and anyone can download it without facing recrimination, it's an incentive for people to make child pornography, which isn't possible without abusing children in the process.

Maes said:

Which, in turn, will create the ground for people with greater skill at defending themselves and/or attacking others to increase their power and influence, and even get other people to willingly serve them, thus creating pockets of localized rule and authority, which will then expand and....hey...wait a moment...

Bingo.

Nomad said:

That's about as accurate as saying Democrats advocate socialism.

I'd like someone to explain to me the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. I really don't see one, aside from the former being advocated by rich guys who want the government to go away so they can stop paying taxes and sit on their 10 acres of land with their gun cabinet, while the latter is advocated by angry young people who want to overthrow the government but really have no idea what to do after that.

The LIbertarians want a government more like the one invented when the USA was founded. To what degree they want this seems to vary from person to person. What they seem to forget is you need a strong government to oppose other entities (companies, churches, guilds, etc). The point of a government should be to oppose these things always and put a check on their power so individuals can do what they please. Most governments just spend their time helping these kinds of organizations.

Some libertarians may call themselves individualist anarchists, but others don't mind a role from the government as long as the central elements are managed through the market. Libertarians don't invariably reject the state, they mainly reject public regulation, power or enterprise.

And I would say that taking laissez-faire to its extremity is not the same as rejecting the unequal distribution of power, which is the main concern behind the anarchist movement as such. It might be seen as the opposite, even.

The problem with having a rational debate about Libertarianism here is that it's a frequently misunderstood ideology, largely because no two Libertarians can seem to agree on the same thing (an obvious exaggeration, but there are many different flavours of Libertarianism out there) - Like Danarchy said, there certainly exist many people that call themselves Libertarian that really just have an agenda of Anarchism. The most appropriate one-word label would probably be Minarchist though, since as Myk pointed out there are Libertarians that want some form of government to keep things from getting crazy.

The core idea behind Libertarianism (ignoring the economic aspects naturally) as I understand it, is 'less government makes for better lives for everyone'. The less the government intervenes in your matters, the better. Some people take that idea quite far, whereas others think moderation is key - on the other hand, Anarchists would rather that every man fends for himself which is pretty preposterous as anyone can see. On the other hand, many Anarchists point to Somalia as some kind of paradise.

There are some parallels between Libertarianism and Anarchism, but Libertarianism is just a pinch more reasonable. Also, as Aliotroph said, some Libertarians want to fall back to the early days of America, the era after the signing of the declaration of independence. I think a better question than 'What is the difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism?' would be, 'Is thumping a bible worse than thumping the US Constitution?'. The answer of course, is unclear - but we should keep in mind that the Constitution was never intended to be beyond reproach or otherwise untouchable, it was intended to be interpreted by the Supreme Court as society advanced - the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that cultures would change and evolve over time.