Dutchies - pervs

[Tom]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...UKOC_0_US-DUTCH-PEDOPHILES.xml&archived=False

Wrong. Very wrong.

 

[ECA]

So thats why tdc has his panties in a bunch, his new party is going down as well as he thought.

Puns not intended but still humerous.

 

[Mey]

"We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

There going to shake something awake thats for sure...

 

[Draylor]

Whats wrong with it, thats just democracy in action.

If they were actually to get more than 2 votes then that would be wrong.

Irelands current legal problems are far more wrong: yay lets set a bunch of kiddy fiddlers free because some silly judge decides the law is against the constitution. Muppets uke:

 

[Mey]

"He had sex with the 12-year-old girl after plying her with alcohol.

The state is argued that Mr A should have stayed behind bars and serve his full three-year sentence."

SCUM!

However

It is expected to allow teenagers to have sex with someone between the ages of 14 and 16 years, as long as they are not more than two years older than the younger person.

Good to see the govt. Taking notice of the 2 year rule! HOORAH!

 

[Escape]

This is how it starts... next they'll want to legalise sex with vegetables uke:

 

[noblok]

Well then, a different view:

I personally don't want to see child porn, nor am I sexually interested in children, but I can't see why children shouldn't be allowed to have sex. As long as they aren't forced to and no physical harm is caused, I don't really see the problem with it. I suppose having sex with a 12 year old as an adult man would cause some serious harm, but that isn't the real reason as to why people don't like it. Even if it caused no harm, people would still consider it wrong. I know I do.

Personally I think that if the law would come into effect as they want it, it would change very little. Rape and causing physical harm will still be punishable. If a kid wants to have sex with an adult now, they will do it, even though it's illegal. There might be the problem of abuse of trust (e.g. incest), but when there's a 'dependency-relation' between the partners, the nvd wants 16 as the minimum age.

Lack of responsibility is the only real counter-argument I can think of. I guess starting sexual education earlier, could counter that though. "Don't cross the road when the light's red and don't have sex without a condom!" or something along those lines .

I'm not saying I'm all for legalising it, I'm not really against it either though. I've just got some troubling with finding a foundation for morale/law.

 

[TdC]

So thats why tdc has his panties in a bunch, his new party is going down as well as he thought.

Puns not intended but still humerous.

heh no. and on topic, I don't think a kiddiefiddler's party is anything more than getting people rilled up. though having read the article they'll have all the druggies votes at least.

 

[DaGaffer]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...UKOC_0_US-DUTCH-PEDOPHILES.xml&archived=False

Wrong. Very wrong.

Yes indeedy. This bit sort of made me laugh though:

Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

I think there might be a slight flaw in their argument.

 

[rynnor]

I'm not saying I'm all for legalising it, I'm not really against it either though. I've just got some troubling with finding a foundation for morale/law.

There is no moral foundation - the age of consent is purely a legal mechanism that has evolved and has shaped/been shaped by our culture.

When Queen Victoria came to the throne the age of consent was 10 years old and you could get married at 12. It was common for men to marry girls twenty years younger than themselves.

Nowadays we would regard them with horror but its purely a cultural/legal thing. The age of consent has always been an arbitrary figure - it has never been linked to puberty and has always been a mixture of child protection and restraining child sexuality - heres an interesting paper I read.

http://www.wickedness.net/els/els1/dcruze paper.pdf

 

[Tareregion]

Don't judge the whole Dutch population cos of a few fucktards.

Recent polls show that pretty much everyone here agrees that this new political party is disgusting and they aren't even expected to raise the minimum number of autographs needed to participate in an election (500something are needed).

But unfortunately this is how a democracy works, anyone who wants to be heard, will be heard. For example during our 2002 elections we had a party for parties, which made one of its election themes appointing a minister for parties and festivals.
The pedo-party hasn't broken any laws so legally they can't be banned from elections.

The other side of democracy though is that the people decide and the Dutch do agree that this party should never get any influence. (oh and neither did the party for parties )

Speaking of pedophilia (sp), 75% of the Dutch people said today that it should be made illegal to condone pedophilia (as the new party is doing), much like condoning terrorism.

 

[noblok]

There is no moral foundation

Exactly, which is why I don't really see the problem with changing it to another arbitrary number. Edit: of course I see that there's a problem, it doesn't really fit in the 'symbolic frame work' we have right now, but I see no principal objection. Symbols are subject to change after all.

That last sentence was more in general though. I'm trying to find a foundation for any law or moral rule. It isn't really working though .

 

[DaGaffer]

When Queen Victoria came to the throne the age of consent was 10 years old and you could get married at 12. It was common for men to marry girls twenty years younger than themselves.

Oh for crying out loud. We also sent kids up chimneys, had public hangings and the Press Gang. Are you suggesting we bring those back as well? It doesn't matter what our ancestors did, and to say there is 'no moral foundation', and that it's entirely a 'legal/cultural' thing, is purest bollocks. Apart from anything else, your legal/cultural framework at any particular time is a reflection of your moral viewpoint. Its all part of the same thing. While it is entirely true that children can become sexually active at 12 or even less, that's missing the point. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should. Even ignoring the potential emotional damage, there are sound physical reasons (for girls at least) to avoid becoming sexually active too early.

 

[noblok]

Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should. Even ignoring the potential emotional damage, there are sound physical reasons (for girls at least) to avoid becoming sexually active too early.

Those aren't really the reasons why we (I at least) consider it as wrong though. If an adult and a young girl lie naked in bed, kissing, touching, but not copulating, it is still considered wrong, even though it causes no physical harm (as far as I know). It's comparable to incest. The most used argument is "the children will be deformed", but even when there's no risk of reproducing it still feels/is wrong.

The 'objective' reasons are only an attempt to hide the fact that it's based on symbolic contexts. Not necessarily a conscious attempt, it's entirely possible one believes that those are the real reasons, but they are not.

 

[Raven]

he isnt saying he agrees or disagrees, he is just pointing out how it was and that the people at the time didnt have a problem with it.

 

[Tom]

Pagans used to have sex with horses, to demonstrate their mastery.

Perhaps we should bring back Prima Noctis while we're at it.

 

[noblok]

I suppose that's an attempt to show me a flaw in my reasoning, but I fail to see how your argument works. Could you elaborate?

 

[Tom]

Do you have children noblok?

 

[noblok]

I don't. I'm not pro-paedophilia though. I am simply pointing out that there is no rational reason to prohibit it. (edit: or at least not one I know of )

 

[Sar]

Prohibit adult-child sex, or child-child sex?

 

[noblok]

Well, I don't see a rational reason for either. There's the physical harm argument, but it's still wrong even if causes none...

I'd love to find one though, as I also think paedophilia is wrong.

 

[rynnor]

he isnt saying he agrees or disagrees, he is just pointing out how it was and that the people at the time didnt have a problem with it.

Thanks - my point is that the rules are arbitrary that today when you are 15 and 364 days old your an innocent and then the next day your not and that in other times people had a different set of arbitrary values which they upheld.

In many ancient cultures paedophilia was taboo because they believed in 'rites of passage' and phases of life - sex was taboo before a person 'came of age' (the actual age varied widely and for women was often tied to the start of menstruation).

I believe it is wrong but I also know that this is a judgement based on cultural attitudes rather than reason.

 

[rynnor]

to say there is 'no moral foundation', and that it's entirely a 'legal/cultural' thing, is purest bollocks.

If two 15 year olds have consenting sex can you please show me how this is morally wrong rather than just legally wrong?

 

[Mey]

Its not morally wrong buts its ethically wrong, if those 15 year olds were to have children how would they look after them?

 

[nath]

A - difference between morals and ethics plz?

B - So if two 16 yr olds have a kid, that's ok?

 

[noblok]

Its not morally wrong buts its ethically wrong, if those 15 year olds were to have children how would they look after them?

That isn't the real reason. Even if they were infertile it would be illegal (and depending on your moral view also immoral).

 

[Tom]

I don't. I'm not pro-paedophilia though. I am simply pointing out that there is no rational reason to prohibit it. (edit: or at least not one I know of )

So if you had an 11 year old daughter who told you one day that the 30 year old over the road wanted to sleep with her, what would you say to that?

Answers on a postcard tbh.

 

[noblok]

I would be shocked and tell her not to, because it would feel wrong. I think there's no rational ground for prohibiting it, but that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.

 

[Louster]

People may accuse you of a lot of things, Tom, but one thing nobody could ever accuse you of is getting the point.

Edit - this seems to be basically the old "is there an ultimate, objective morality?" thing, and it seems unlikely that it'll be finally resolved by a forum full of internet gamers. Someone go grab a Big Book of First Year Philosophy, please.

 

[noblok]

Someone go grab a Big Book of First Year Philosophy, please.

I did, this is my revision for the upcoming exam .

Without kidding: I didn't really like the answer presented, so I'm presenting it to others, hoping they find a way to prove it wrong. Thinking along the lines of a strict division of the rational and subjective/normative domain myself. The problem is that this division isn't strict enough in the real world to be able to support this line of thought .