If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(China Daily)   China Daily identifies the face of the new Dutch pedophile political party   (chinadaily.com.cn) divider line 250
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

16961 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 May 2006 at 12:10 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-05-31 12:46:48 PM
me chinese, me play joke, me put pee pee in your boy's bottm

hahahahahah

didn't care to rtfa
 
2006-05-31 12:47:23 PM
And the reason for yesterday's thread being pulled but today's staying green is ... ?

Funnier headline? Just to hear you piss and moan?
 
2006-05-31 12:47:42 PM
well I'm not too keen on the free train travel...but 12 year olds, now there's something I could definitely get into
 
2006-05-31 12:48:54 PM
Chordonblue

Yeah. Those jerkoffs and their interracial marriage led to this!
 
2006-05-31 12:51:17 PM
it al startedwith prodistantism... If we'd have just strusted the catholic church with out children none of this would have happened
 
2006-05-31 12:52:41 PM
wow... my type fu realy let me down there on that last post
 
2006-05-31 12:54:04 PM
I hope no one is shocked. Many folks you all call righties or fundies, in your open-minded and tolerant way, have been expecting that these particular tastes would be next to seek legitimization, protection, and eventually favor.

As a Canadian man married to a woman, I have no constitutional protection, Gary and his husband/wife? (not mocking, just unsure of the lingo) do.
 
2006-05-31 12:56:26 PM
Hilarious!
 
2006-05-31 12:56:47 PM
WHat slippery slope?

/gay marriage
 
2006-05-31 12:57:47 PM
the founder is leela's dad
 
2006-05-31 12:59:15 PM
Chordonblue

What consenting adults do, which is not what this article is talking about, and how they define they're relationship has nothing to do with the rest of us. If you're too weak to keep your own morals based on what other people (who you don't even know) do, I suspect your relationships are already doomed.
 
2006-05-31 01:00:46 PM
*shrug* whatever.

The Dutch seem to have the opposite view on things: rather than asking "why should X be legal", they ask "why it should X continue to be illegal". I happen to like that way of thinking. I see no compelling legal reason for the things listed to be illegal (with a few minor caveats).

I wouldn't do most of the stuff they want to legalize, but I don't see why I should stop someone who is a little weird from doing it. I just don't care enough about imposing my will upon others.

I feel no compulsion to dignify the desires of others to keep people from doing what they want, so long as either they aren't affected, or can easily choose not to be (like changing the channel, not going into a headshop, etc.)
 
2006-05-31 01:02:56 PM
wow... the trolls are restless today....
 
2006-05-31 01:04:28 PM
Except for the whole naked in public thing, actually. I didn't remember that one.
 
2006-05-31 01:05:48 PM
"What consenting adults do..."

How do you define that exactly? Is a 16 year old an adult? How about 14? That seems to be the 'magic' age according to 'age of consent': http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

When you start loosening the rules, don't be surprised to find people who want to loosen them just a little... bit... more...

I say how people define their relationships in public affairs DOES matter. Don't talk about weakness like it's something that happens overnight. It's a slow, sliding progress down the slope.
 
2006-05-31 01:06:25 PM
Clever Neologism
The Dutch seem to have the opposite view on things: rather than asking "why should X be legal", they ask "why it should X continue to be illegal". I happen to like that way of thinking. I see no compelling legal reason for the things listed to be illegal (with a few minor caveats).

Care to explain what the caveats to legalizing sex with 12 year olds would be? Unless I am mistaking what you are saying.
 
2006-05-31 01:09:58 PM
Chordonblue
...And a big 'FARK YOU' to all those who insisted that gay marriage wouldn't eventually lead to this sort of thing. Loosening the definitions of intimate relationships has created a moral shifting sands.

Actually, I think it started with allowing sex outside of marriage and not just for procreation, when women were still the property of a man, either their father or husband. You know it's what led to dancing, don't you?
 
2006-05-31 01:10:24 PM
Chordonblue

"...And a big 'FARK YOU' to all those who insisted that gay marriage wouldn't eventually lead to this sort of thing. Loosening the definitions of intimate relationships has created a moral shifting sands."

Pull your head out of your ass troll.
 
2006-05-31 01:11:31 PM
Chordonblue
If you can't distinguish between two men, or two women who want to marry and share a life together and a sicko who wants to rape and molest children, then you sir are a pathetic waste of skin!!!
 
2006-05-31 01:12:46 PM
samimgreen

I don't think CN was saying he agreed with the pedophile party, just the Dutch socio-political philosophy that revisits why things should be illegal rather than why they should be legal. It's a philosophy that places individual freedoms before any particular morality (whether it's Christian or Fundamentalist Islam or Anarchist or whatever).

At least, in theory it does.
 
2006-05-31 01:16:34 PM
samingreen:

"Actually, I think it started with allowing sex outside of marriage and not just for procreation, when women were still the property of a man, either their father or husband. You know it's what led to dancing, don't you?"

You are right, that's why the slide should continue to having sex with animals and children... Huh? I don't understand your logic here. Why are you defending this?

Rivethead:

Assuming your name doesn't say it all, you could at least TRY to argue the point. Oh what a troll I am for pointing out the truth of the situation! Tell me something - if gay marriage had not been allowed and the rules of traditional marriage had not been effectively annulled; how do you get to a point where you are actually CONSIDERING allowing sex with animals/children? Do you have to weaken existing taboos before you can progress to the really big ones?
 
2006-05-31 01:17:56 PM
www.pixpond.com
Please kill him Lord..
www.pixpond.com
 
2006-05-31 01:18:07 PM
placain
Call me easily amused, but ceiling cat always makes me laugh.

And what the heck does Badnarik have to do with this? Barney Frank, or his right-wing twin Jim Bakker, I'd understand.

/voted for Badnarik '04
 
2006-05-31 01:18:10 PM
Clever Neologism: The Dutch seem to have the opposite view on things: rather than asking "why should X be legal", they ask "why it should X continue to be illegal". I happen to like that way of thinking. I see no compelling legal reason for the things listed to be illegal (with a few minor caveats).

I wouldn't do most of the stuff they want to legalize, but I don't see why I should stop someone who is a little weird from doing it. I just don't care enough about imposing my will upon others.

I feel no compulsion to dignify the desires of others to keep people from doing what they want, so long as either they aren't affected, or can easily choose not to be (like changing the channel, not going into a headshop, etc.)


my guess is that you don't have kids
 
2006-05-31 01:18:36 PM
Something looks wrong about Jacko's nose in those pics.

He has one.
 
2006-05-31 01:18:47 PM
No tax cuts? Screw them.
 
2006-05-31 01:18:58 PM
Chordonblue

Well, let's follow your slippery slope to its obvious conclusion:

It all started with sex, period--with the whole schtick of making Adam and Eve male and female.

Yep. This is all G-d's fault.
 
2006-05-31 01:21:46 PM
I think that the age of consent should be HIGHER!

I look at myself at 16 anf I didn't know what I was doing. These restrictions are for dirty old men looking for something young to put a weeny in to get off on....

/sick twisted farkers
//someone should finish knocking his teeth out...Like me!
 
2006-05-31 01:23:06 PM
Pipmaster2004:

No, I'm afraid I just don't know the difference anymore 'Pip'. I mean 12 years old seems fairly adult to me, you know? In fact, I'll bet if you ask most 12 year olds they'll go out of their way to impress you on how 'old' they are!

Listen, I'M not the one supporting this group - get your head out of your ass. What I am saying is that there are people that have to push the envelope. The envelope is defined by current law - which if I'm not mistaken - has been stretched to the point where pedophillia can now be considered as a possible 'alternative' lifestyle.

You'll deny it to forward your ajenda, but the truth is that eventually the slide will continue and pedophillia won't be the next great 'adventure'. Something far worse will come after that...
 
2006-05-31 01:25:13 PM
Chordonblue: You'll deny it to forward your ajenda, but the truth is that eventually the slide will continue and pedophillia won't be the next great 'adventure'. Something far worse will come after that...

Dude? Do yourself a favor, and read this page.

Your alleged 'arguement' [ which is not only a Slippery Slope, but also an Appeal to Emotion/Appeal to Fear ] has no validity behind it.

If you want to be taken seriously, take a few minutes to sit down and think out an actual arguement.
 
2006-05-31 01:27:11 PM
bigjoel [TotalFark

Ehjaym he married his underaged cousin if i'm not mistaken...

Correct! 15 points!

From Wikipedia:

Lewis' turbulent personal life was hidden from the publicoontil a 1958 British tour, when reporters learned about the twenty-three year old star's third wife, Myra Gale Brown, who also happened to be his thirteen year old second cousin once removed.


Quoting from wikipedia! -15 points!
 
2006-05-31 01:28:01 PM
Chordonblue: No, I'm afraid I just don't know the difference anymore 'Pip'. I mean 12 years old seems fairly adult to me, you know? In fact, I'll bet if you ask most 12 year olds they'll go out of their way to impress you on how 'old' they are!

Listen, I'M not the one supporting this group - get your head out of your ass. What I am saying is that there are people that have to push the envelope. The envelope is defined by current law - which if I'm not mistaken - has been stretched to the point where pedophillia can now be considered as a possible 'alternative' lifestyle.

You'll deny it to forward your ajenda, but the truth is that eventually the slide will continue and pedophillia won't be the next great 'adventure'. Something far worse will come after that...


By the poll reding in the Nederlands, the slope got a whole lot steaper there with this ploy.

An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.
 
2006-05-31 01:29:54 PM
/golf clap
 
2006-05-31 01:30:49 PM
...And a big 'FARK YOU' to all those who insisted that gay marriage wouldn't eventually lead to this sort of thing. Loosening the definitions of intimate relationships has created a moral shifting sands.


Allowing marriage between same-sex couples seemed to be rather logical to me. If marriage is a union of two consenting individuals it did not seem logical, to me, why that would be restricted to unions between a man and a woman. I never understood, nor do I accept, why homosexuals should be treated differently than heterosexuals...why they should be officially discriminated and reduced to second-class citizens.

Additionally, allowing gay marriage didn't change the definition of an "intimate relationship." Stop using sloppy terminology. The only thing it did was change the definition of what qualifies as a legally binding union between two consenting individuals. No one is contesting whether or not a relationship exists.


True, this party is 'way out' now, but for how much longer? Gay marriage seemed pretty unlikely just 10 years ago. Will animal and pedo sex seem so bad 10 or 20 years from now. Will you be a prude to even suggest that it might be wrong?


Gay marriage was based on the presumption that marriage should be a union between two consenting individuals regardless of gender and/or sexuality.

However, there is no contest regarding the ability of a 12 year old to consent to a sexual relationship nor is there any question that a pet/animal can consent to such with a human.

Nice strawman.
 
2006-05-31 01:30:53 PM
kill yourself, gay marriage trolls. just... kill yourself. seriously. you can't even co-opt a more recent O'Reilly argument? i am so very disappointed.
 
2006-05-31 01:32:04 PM
Muninsfire:

Reality check: Could sex with children and animals seriously be considered in a pre-gay marriage society? One in which marriage was a simple, defined: Man and Woman? I think not. You'd have been locked up for just suggesting sex with animals seriously, let alone form a political party.

Don't try and obfusitcate the facts. If I sound as if I'm making an appeal to emotion or fear, maybe that comes from realizing that logic, obviously isn't working as well here. I've made my points accurately and if you don't agree with them, that doesn't mean that somehow my ability to argue a point effectively is flawed. It merely means that you can't find a suitable counter-argument. Color me surprised...
 
2006-05-31 01:33:30 PM
Chordonblue

I'm not defending the dutch party. I'm defending gay marriage. Consenting adults does not equal anything done with children, sorry. I think your attack is being rediculed for what it is, fundamentalist attack on the rights of other adults.

Let's do another analogy. We (American Indians) should not have let any pilgrims in. Their fundamentalist ideals are now being pushed on everyone globally. It was a slippery slope that shold never have been allowed to happen.

/what a game...
 
2006-05-31 01:34:11 PM
Chordonblue


You'll deny it to forward your ajenda, but the truth is that eventually the slide will continue and pedophillia won't be the next great 'adventure'. Something far worse will come after that...


Your slippery slope argument does not work because there is no causal link between gay marriage and acceptance of pedophilia. The driving forces behind both are completely different (see 2006-05-31 01:30:49 PM)...and thus your "argument" is groundless.
 
2006-05-31 01:34:13 PM
"Gay marriage was based on the presumption that marriage should be a union between two consenting individuals regardless of gender and/or sexuality. However, there is no contest regarding the ability of a 12 year old to consent to a sexual relationship nor is there any question that a pet/animal can consent to such with a human."

...Yet.
 
2006-05-31 01:37:12 PM
Muninsfire:
Reality check: Could sex with children and animals seriously be considered in a pre-gay marriage society?

Yes.
 
2006-05-31 01:38:15 PM
Chordonblue


"Gay marriage was based on the presumption that marriage should be a union between two consenting individuals regardless of gender and/or sexuality. However, there is no contest regarding the ability of a 12 year old to consent to a sexual relationship nor is there any question that a pet/animal can consent to such with a human."

...Yet.



Let's try this, 12 year olds can't consent to a sexual relationship and neither can pets. End of story. No basis for challenge. Your slippery slope just flattened out.

Now, do tell me, how you jumped from a relationship between consenting adults, people who are legally able to consent (pets are not people), which is already intimate (they just want it to be legally binding & gain all the benefits thereof) to pedophilia and bestiality.

There is no link. Your argument lacks both logic and reason.
 
2006-05-31 01:38:39 PM
Chordonblue
...Yet.

So you would deny what is right for fear of leading to something that might be wrong? Guess we should have left them at the back of the bus then, eh?
 
2006-05-31 01:39:07 PM
samimgreen

Care to explain what the caveats to legalizing sex with 12 year olds would be? Unless I am mistaking what you are saying.


Parental consent, and of course the consent of the 12-year-old. No prostitution (since it's legal there). Must take place in the parent's home, with them in the house. All this is to 1) force parental responsibility and knowledge in the matter, and 2) prevent abuse.

I think it's sick, disgusting, and not sexually or psychologically healthy, but those in themselves aren't good reasons for making it illegal.
 
2006-05-31 01:39:36 PM
Surely that guy is English, and not Dutch. On the other hand, his teeth aren't THAT yellow!
/ducks from my friendly bloody Brits
 
2006-05-31 01:39:36 PM
Chordonblue: Reality check: Could sex with children and animals seriously be considered in a pre-gay marriage society? One in which marriage was a simple, defined: Man and Woman? I think not. You'd have been locked up for just suggesting sex with animals seriously, let alone form a political party.

Strawman.

And false, to boot. I think you'll find plenty of examples of bestiality in societies that are as straight as they come--c.f. the stereotypical "Scottish Farmer" jokes. Also, there's anecdotal [ if somewhat apocryphal ] evidence of rural adolecents experimenting with animals in numerous areas.

Granted, people don't tend to *talk* about that.....

Now, children, not so much--but you come up against an apples and oranges situation there, when you try to compare the mores and customs of different cultures. The Maisai people in Africa, for instance, find what you would refer to as pedophilia to be perfectly acceptable in their traditional culture. Romeo and Juliet were supposedly 14 and 13, respectively. Neither society--the Masai, nor Renaissance Venice--tolerates homosexuality.

Your arguement is a fallacy, and has zero validity.

Don't try and obfusitcate the facts.

The word is "obfuscate"--and the only obfuscation going on here is your clouding of the issues involved.

If I sound as if I'm making an appeal to emotion or fear, maybe that comes from realizing that logic, obviously isn't working as well here.

What logic? I have seen nothing but a slippery slope, several straw men, and appeals to emotion and fear. Please, point out where you've made a single logical statement.

I've made my points accurately and if you don't agree with them, that doesn't mean that somehow my ability to argue a point effectively is flawed.

As I've proven above with specific examples, your points are neither accurate nor proven.

It merely means that you can't find a suitable counter-argument. Color me surprised...

I was hoping perhaps that you would make a legitimate arguement so that I could engage in intelligent discourse, rather than do the usual trick of debunking a load of strawmen as the fallacious constructions that they are.

Again, kindly construct a logical arguement. Seriously, read that page, and think for a few minutes before responding.
 
2006-05-31 01:40:49 PM
Clever Neologism
Parental consent, and of course the consent of the 12-year-old. No prostitution (since it's legal there). Must take place in the parent's home, with them in the house. All this is to 1) force parental responsibility and knowledge in the matter, and 2) prevent abuse.

I think it's sick, disgusting, and not sexually or psychologically healthy, but those in themselves aren't good reasons for making it illegal.


Umm, ick and no. Those are perfectly valid reasons for making it illegal.
 
2006-05-31 01:40:54 PM
samimgreen: Muninsfire:
Reality check: Could sex with children and animals seriously be considered in a pre-gay marriage society?

Yes.


That was ChordonBlue who said that, not me--I was just in the middle of proving "yes" with specific examples when you made your response. ^^;
 
2006-05-31 01:41:52 PM
Clever Neologism

All this is to 1) force parental responsibility and knowledge in the matter, and 2) prevent abuse.

I think it's sick, disgusting, and not sexually or psychologically healthy, but those in themselves aren't good reasons for making it illegal.



That makes me worry about what kind of legal grounds the state would have then to prevent abuse, physical and/or sexual, by parents/guardians. The basic presumption was that children could not possibly consent and that the acts themselves, even though they were done by the parent and more often than not with the full knowledge of the other parent, were illegal on their face.
 
2006-05-31 01:42:29 PM
samimgreen: Umm, ick and no. Those are perfectly valid reasons for making it illegal.

Well, I think that Brussels Sprouts are sick, wrong, and disgusting as well. So is that good enough grounds to make those illegal?

True, pedophilia ought to be illegal--but not just based on some opinion that it's sick, wrong, and disgusting.

Rather, pedophilia ought to be illegal based on the grounds that it is injurious to the development of a child.

Please, keep your opinions out of lawmaking--it just leads to trouble.
 
2006-05-31 01:42:45 PM
Chordonblue...

Look, I know you're getting a lot of carp for your views, but I just want to clarify that they are just as "allowed" as the view that same-sex marriage is fine. What you need to do is realize that the other side is just as "allowed" as you are to hold a belief, and even to shout it from rooftops, or even the internet.

Before you go making statements on morality, please note that your own morality only governs yourself. Let other peoples' morality govern those other people.

Laws are created to keep violence (not offence) from being unchecked. The state allows predetermined amounts of violence for the purposes of a controlled punishment.

That said, even if anti-gay laws (anti-sodomy laws) exist, do you think that will prevent all sodomy?
You can't keep homosexuals from living together, you can't keep homosexual people from adopting. All you can do is tell them they can't say they're a couple, and they can't get all the great legal benefits that come from being married, and that's just downright silly.

I'm sorry, but you just can't be physically harmed by the thought of other people doing things you don't want them to do, specifically when no violent acts or threats of violence are coming to anyone.

That's exactly why the pedophile thing won't fly, and it's exactly why gay marriage should fly.

Also...it's a Logic 101 class lesson that "slippery slope" arguments are all invalid, no matter where they are used. Anyone who uses them (McCarthy, Falwell, Bush, You, etc.) can't be sheltered forever from the overall feelings of contempt and moral and intellectual superiority that their educated opponents are bound to feel.

If you want to use your faith rather than your reason to make a law, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong country. Also keep in mind that the only countries that actually get away with that kind of oppression are the countries where being white, or being American will get you killed and not with too much difficulty.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report