Dutch court outlaws pedophile association Martijn, says it breaches country’s moral values
134 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36563932]Oh fuck off. "there's no difference between the orientations" Yeah sure, we should just learn to accept pedophiles for who they are. No. Being a pedophile is damaging to others if acted out upon and is damaging to the pedophile regardless. Should we learn not to hate them irrationally? Absolutely. Should we just accept their socially dangerous disorder and not try to help them? Fuck no.[/QUOTE]
No. There's no difference between being attracted to members of the same sex, and being attracted to children. Namely the fact that [B]you cannot help either of those.[/B] You do not choose to be gay, nor do you choose to be a paedophile.
Having sex with a gay person is fine by me, there's no reason it shouldn't be.
Having sex with a child isn't, for the reasons that everyone knows. I'm not arguing for permitting child abuse, I'm arguing for not arresting people based on aspects of their personality that they have no choice in.
lmfao
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36563932]Should we just accept their socially dangerous disorder and not try to help them? Fuck no.[/QUOTE]
Which isn't at all what he was arguing. He's just saying we shouldn't arrest them for being pedophiles. Good job completely missing the point.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36564048]No. There's no difference between being attracted to members of the same sex, and being attracted to children. Namely the fact that [B]you cannot help either of those.[/B] You do not choose to be gay, nor do you choose to be a paedophile.
Having sex with a gay person is fine by me, there's no reason it shouldn't be.
Having sex with a child isn't, for the reasons that everyone knows. I'm not arguing for permitting child abuse, I'm arguing for not arresting people based on aspects of their personality that they have no choice in.[/QUOTE]
I guarantee that no one will read that post, so I'm just going to highlight my main point.
[B][U]I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY CHILD ABUSE. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ARREST SOMEONE FOR NO REASON BEYOND THEIR SEXUALITY. THE INSTANT THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS TAKING PART IN THE ROUTINE ABUSE OF MINORS I WILL FULLY SUPPORT THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT BANNING IT.[/U][/B]
That get your attention? Good.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;36564039]The whole idea that people can defend pedophiles is just laughable. Any sane person who has a child (and isn't a pedophile) would agree that under no circumstances should the idea that pedophilia being remotely acceptable being spread around is "good" or "acceptable"
You can argue as much as you want, but in the end, people who wish to have intercourse with children are dangerous people. They may not stab people, or rob people, or commit fraud, but they wish to (or like to) have sex with kids. Saying that doing so shouldn't be against the law may be legal, but as many people have said, it's morally wrong. It's a social extreme, many people believe that pedophiles should be executed, and it isn't hard to understand why (given that you aren't somebody who sees only in black and white.)
There's a line in the sand when it comes to freedom of speech/expression. Trying to argue that fucking children doesn't cross that line is partially (read: entirely) retarded.
Then again, I do not enjoy or partake in the fucking of children, nor have I ever spoken to somebody who enjoys fucking children, so I'm heavily bias. I should probably just ignore the fact that these people (who enjoy fucking children) are trying to justify and make acceptable the fucking of children.
Yeah, lets just ignore them. No harm could come of a organization arguing the illegality of fucking children.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36563690]I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong? I've been thinking about it and I can't, except for the fact that children (children being anyone under the age of consent in a given region) cannot legally give consent. However, if the body is ready, what exact part of it is wrong?
(I'm not interested in arguments based on morality because that's obviously why most people consider it wrong; I'm just challenging the thinking behind it)[/QUOTE]
[quote]THE INSTANT THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS TAKING PART IN THE ROUTINE ABUSE OF MINORS I WILL FULLY SUPPORT THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT BANNING IT.[/quote]
Well, if you actually read the topic, there is.
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;36564039]Saying that doing so shouldn't be against the law may be legal, but as many people have said, it's morally wrong.[/QUOTE]
If you [b]ever[/b] try to use "it's morally wrong" to justify violating a person's [b]human rights[/b], you should stop whatever the fuck you're doing for about 70 years.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36564106]I guarantee that no one will read that post, so I'm just going to highlight my main point.
[B][U]I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY CHILD ABUSE. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ARREST SOMEONE FOR NO REASON BEYOND THEIR SEXUALITY. THE INSTANT THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS TAKING PART IN THE ROUTINE ABUSE OF MINORS I WILL FULLY SUPPORT THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT BANNING IT.[/U][/B]
That get your attention? Good.[/QUOTE]
And there was. Some 3-year old girl was abused by her neighbor, he confessed to it and also said that several people within Martijn were giving him tips and tricks that allowed him to do it.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;36564159]And there was. Some 3-year old girl was abused by her neighbor, he confessed to it and also said that several people within Martijn were giving him tips and tricks that allowed him to do it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not seeing it in the article. Am I blind?
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36563690]I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong?[/QUOTE]
It's wrong for an adult, yes. There will always be a power imbalance in these kinds of situations. For better or worse, we have trained children (this includes "pubescent" children, as you say) to trust and defer to the authority of adults. Even if consent is obtained, it might be acquired unfairly, for instance by pressuring the child. This is why the consent of a minor is invalid, and why statutory rape is a thing. Child rape victims usually deal with lifelong trauma.
However, if the kids are both of very similar age e.g. two consenting 16 year olds, then I think it shouldn't be a crime. I might be biased since I'm going by my country's laws (UK), but I think by the age of 16, if you feel ready, you shouldn't be outright prevented from doing it with a 16 year old.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;36564269]It's wrong for an adult, yes. There will always be a power imbalance in these kinds of situations. For better or worse, we have trained children (this includes "pubescent" children, as you say) to trust and defer to the authority of adults. Even if consent is obtained, it might be acquired unfairly, for instance by pressuring the child. This is why the consent of a minor is invalid, and why statutory rape is a thing. Child rape victims usually deal with lifelong trauma..[/QUOTE]
But [I]why[/I] is it wrong? Basically what I'm asking boils down to how you determine if someone who is physically ready for sex is able or unable to give consent.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36563270]
What this boils down to is thought crime. They weren't doing anything wrong, and they were busted for it. Are you really so terrified of people who can't help what they are attracted to that you feel the need to do a gloriously accurate impression of a redneck homophobe?
[/QUOTE]
This point makes the case problematic, I guess if they do not act to harm children (which they seem to, based on information in other posts), then I guess their existence has to be accepted, just like people sexually attracted to horses.
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36564377]But [I]why[/I] is it wrong?[/QUOTE]
because far too often actual lasting harm is done to the kid
[quote]Basically what I'm asking boils down to how you determine if someone who is physically ready for sex is able or unable to give consent.[/QUOTE]
right, well that IS a harder question, and people have considered it in depth and detail and have then come up with various age of consent laws, but can you at least understand [I]why[/I] they have to exist now?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Child_sexual_abuse[/url]
[quote=Wikipedia]Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation.[13][14] Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child, displaying pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or using a child to produce child pornography.[13][15][16] Selling the sexual services of children may be viewed and treated as child abuse with services offered to the child rather than simple incarceration.[17]
Effects of child sexual abuse include guilt and self-blame, flashbacks, nightmares, insomnia, fear of things associated with the abuse (including objects, smells, places, doctor's visits, etc.), self-esteem issues, sexual dysfunction, chronic pain, addiction, self-injury, suicidal ideation, somatic complaints, depression,[18] post-traumatic stress disorder,[19] anxiety,[20] other mental illnesses (including borderline personality disorder[21] and dissociative identity disorder,[21] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[22] bulimia nervosa,[23] physical injury to the child, among other problems.[24][/quote]
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36563690]I happen to disagree with it, but can anyone provide a rational justification that sex with a pubescent child is wrong? I've been thinking about it and I can't, except for the fact that children (children being anyone under the age of consent in a given region) cannot legally give consent. However, if the body is ready, what exact part of it is wrong?
(I'm not interested in arguments based on morality because that's obviously why most people consider it wrong; I'm just challenging the thinking behind it)[/QUOTE]
Just because the body is ready, doesn't mean the mind is.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;36564269]It's wrong for an adult, yes. There will always be a power imbalance in these kinds of situations. For better or worse, we have trained children (this includes "pubescent" children, as you say) to trust and defer to the authority of adults. Even if consent is obtained, it might be acquired unfairly, for instance by pressuring the child. This is why the consent of a minor is invalid, and why statutory rape is a thing. Child rape victims usually deal with lifelong trauma.
However, if the kids are both of very similar age e.g. two consenting 16 year olds, then I think it shouldn't be a crime. I might be biased since I'm going by my country's laws (UK), but I think by the age of 16, if you feel ready, you shouldn't be outright prevented from doing it with a 16 year old.[/QUOTE]
And this. There's an inherent power imbalance between a teenager and an adult.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36563454]So you don't think it is okay to spread ideas that the majority dislikes? Need I bring up slavery, homosexuality and racism? I know you think this one is different, but they thought they were justified with those other subjects too. You have to realize that you [I]can[/I] be wrong, and therefore they should be allowed to spread their ideas.[/QUOTE]
Except I'm pretty sure that we (society) had to fight to [I]raise[/I] the age of consent. This was actually related to women's rights: with lower ages of consent, women would be married off earlier, and often they would quit (or be forced to quit) their education (if they could get one) once they were married, so they wouldn't be able to support themselves as well. Plus the whole "it's harmful" thing.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;36564269]It's wrong for an adult, yes. There will always be a power imbalance in these kinds of situations. For better or worse, we have trained children (this includes "pubescent" children, as you say) to trust and defer to the authority of adults. Even if consent is obtained, it might be acquired unfairly, for instance by pressuring the child. This is why the consent of a minor is invalid, and why statutory rape is a thing. Child rape victims usually deal with lifelong trauma.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It might be acquired unfairly. But it doesn't have to be. A power imbalance is a problem when it is abused, such as when an adult uses his authority to pressure a child into sex. [I]That[/I] is harmful. Sex in itself doesn't have to be.
There's also a physical power imbalance between men and women, and that too is also only harmful when it is abused.
When power gets abused it becomes rape.
From the [URL=http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146941/the_trauma_myth%3A_understanding_the_true_dynamics_of_sexual_abuse?page=3]article I posted earlier[/URL], it doesn't seem that the power imbalance itself is what causes the problems, it really is when it is abused. It isn't hard for a child to tell whether they want something or not, the problem is when adults lie to them, or don't tell them what's going on, or manipulate them, or otherwise coerce them into doing something they will later realize was wrong.
Especially considering that sex in our age is such a huge topic, you'll be overwhelmed once you find out how much of a clusterfuck it is later on. It wouldn't be hard to deal with if it wasn't a big thing. The problem is the betrayal, not the sex itself.
So basically, if there is real consent and no societal bullshit, there is no harm.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;36564464]because far too often actual lasting harm is done to the kid
right, well that IS a harder question, and people have considered it in depth and detail and have then come up with various age of consent laws, but can you at least understand [I]why[/I] they have to exist now?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Child_sexual_abuse[/url][/QUOTE]
Is the notion that sex with someone under the age of consent (by an adult or older adolescent), but biologically ready to reproduce, is inherently damaging to the child's psyche demonstrable?
As an addendum to this, do you think that the harm can be created or intensified precisely because of society's attitude towards this topic?
I don't deny that AoC laws are a good idea. I have no stake in the argumentative outcome of this topic. I just think it's interesting to think about.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36564189]I'm not seeing it in the article. Am I blind?[/QUOTE]
That's because it isn't. I read it a few days ago and it apparently got some things rolling.
For the record, the chairman in question looks like this:
[IMG]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/handjesboventafeladje.jpg[/IMG]
And they didn't even zoom in on the horror called his teeth.
[QUOTE=Jordax;36564637]For the record, the chairman in question looks like this:
[IMG]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/handjesboventafeladje.jpg[/IMG]
And they didn't even zoom in on the horror called his teeth.[/QUOTE]
For the record, that's the last chairman, not the one mentioned in the article.
But yeah, he's a disgusting creep.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36562837]Bullshit[/QUOTE]
yo yeah, uh.. what the fuck is wrong with you
[QUOTE=parket;36564728]yo yeah, uh.. what the fuck is wrong with you[/QUOTE]
Did you read the thread or decide that I was a paedophile based on what was literally the first response made in this thread?
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36564776]Did you read the thread or decide that I was a paedophile based on what was literally the first response made in this thread?[/QUOTE]
no i read your posts looked at your avatar and used a logical deduction to conclude you're an accident waiting to happen
[editline]30th June 2012[/editline]
its not a healthy mindset if youre being a pedo apologist
[QUOTE=parket;36564804]no i read your posts looked at your avatar and used a logical deduction to conclude you're an accident waiting to happen
[editline]30th June 2012[/editline]
its not a healthy mindset if youre being a pedo apologist[/QUOTE]
I think you're mistaking "logical deduction" with jumping to a conclusion and selecting certain elements as evidence to support it.
[QUOTE=parket;36564804]no i read your posts looked at your avatar and used a logical deduction to conclude you're an accident waiting to happen
[editline]30th June 2012[/editline]
its not a healthy mindset if youre being a pedo apologist[/QUOTE]
Going on your posts and avatar, I'm surprised you can work a keyboard.
See? I can make unfair judgements too.
these people need help, not legal immunity
about damn time. too bad its not going to stop their followers to have sex with children
Who the fuck judges people by their avatar. Anyway i dont like pedos, but i do see how its hard for them since its a fetish. And loling at the guy that acts like pedophilia is a ideology. Thats like people believing there is a gay agenda.
just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's alright. of course homosexuality is different because you're fucking another consenting adult (hopefully), these people fuck children and they need help suppressing it.
[QUOTE=parket;36564929]just because it's a fetish doesn't mean it's alright. of course homosexuality is different because you're fucking another consenting adult (hopefully), these people fuck children and they need help suppressing it.[/QUOTE]
do you understand that there is a difference between a pedophile and a kiddie fiddler?
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36564974]do you understand that there is a difference between a pedophile and a kiddie fiddler?[/QUOTE]
i know that having the former greatly increases the chance of the latter, and that everyone who labels themselves as the former should get help asap (i know a few people like Sgt-NiallR are very emotional but if you're experiencing these urges (Sgt-NiallR) please get help)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.