AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage. The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!" The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether. "A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper. "We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium. "We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters. The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan. 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. "They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.
This is the slippery slope I have warned cultural relitivists about. Hey you are for gay marriage but against a man having sex with a 12 year old, why? If you do not believe in an absolute right and wrong you basically have no basis for telling someone else what they do is wrong. In my mind you either have to buy into Natural Law, Plato's concept of perfert forms or God. Without an absolute right or wrong your are lost.
Age limits are not absolute rights and wrongs, they are reasonable guidelines. There is a point at which we consider someone capable of making their own decisions reasonably. I am sure that there are some 12 and 14 year old children who could do that, but most can't. So we have certain laws that are age based, like driving, voting, service in the military, etc. Plato's concept of absolute right and wrong were not anything at all what you are talking about, they had to do with intentions, not actions. Plato had no 10 commandments, he had no Islamic codes of conduct. The great philosophers placed greater emphasis on thought and intention above action itself, as there are always situations that come up where absolute fundamentalist crap thinking that you expound is not the best course of action. The Golden Rule comes as close as possible to a perfect absolute rule though, which of course is something the fundamentalist thinkers are diametrically opposed to. Jesus Christ introduced some rules, which are rarely if ever followed by so called Christians. You know, like turning the other cheek, not judging others, forgiving others their debts, loving all their fellow men, etc.......
first bozo - show me my fundamentalist crap. A person can be in favor of upholding 1000s of years of tradation without resorting to fundamentailist reasoning. Second - reread plato you might want to pay attenton to the perfect forms in the cave. then come back when you actually understand what you are taking about instead of having the usually knee jerk liberal reaction to anyone who thinks there is a right and wrong. P.S. I will prove something. zzz tell me why a 40 year old man should be considered a criminal for engaing in sex with a 14 year old boy. Now do you agree with said reasoning - why or why not.
hee hee, am sure that those pedos have watched too many times that episode of southpark about mambla association.
first bozo - show me my fundamentalist crap. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=1225265 A person can be in favor of upholding 1000s of years of tradation without resorting to fundamentailist reasoning. Is that how slave owners justified owning slaves? 1,000 years of non fundamentalist tradition? Second - reread plato you might want to pay attenton to the perfect forms in the cave. Expand your mind, the forms are not rigid, but it is the rigidity of the mind of the fundamentalist who cannot recognize them. The forms appear naturally to those who have a mind that has transcended such base fundamentalist thought processes. The forms are transcendental, meaning they are very far beyond the narrow mind of a fundamentalist. then come back when you actually understand what you are taking about instead of having the usually knee jerk liberal reaction to anyone who thinks there is a right and wrong. I don't agree with your, so shall I say you don't know what you are talking about. P.S. I will prove something. zzz tell me why a 40 year old man should be considered a criminal for engaing in sex with a 14 year old boy. Same reason it is illegal for a 40 year old man to be engaging in sex with a 14 year old girl....statutory. I have said previously that nearly all 14 year olds are incapable of the level of development mentally to genuinely allow consent, as they have no real understanding to what it is that they are consenting to. I have no opposition to laws on the basis of age of children, and favor child labor laws, no smoking and drinking laws for minors, no military service laws for minors, etc. restrictions of many kind on this basis for minors. However, this is not rigid. In the same way we for the most part don't allow kids to drive a car by themselves before the age of 16, there are certainly exceptions, where a child who is minor can petition for adult rights, and if their case is strong enough, then they deserve the rights of adults.
Your link is broken the forms in the caves are the concept of perfection, of ideals, of perfect norms. While they are hard to grasp and see for man the forms do exist. You are so afraid of thinking you had to pollute your discourse with a fear of fundamentalism. Again liberal knee jerk. For Plato the tough question would not be is there a right and wrong, but who is nominated to figure out what is in the caves and how to conform the laws as closely as possible with what is just and right. Who gets to say what must be in the cave. Plato suggested Philospher Kings. People who believe in Natural Law and God also come to similar conclusion. The law must conform to what is right. When the law is wrong it must be improved. People who say is is wrong because it is illegal (statutory) as you suggest have not really thought the concept of society and law through very far. What should the law embody. What is just Saying it is wrong because it is illegal. Allows perverts and wack jobs to potentially legalize man boy sex if they get enough votes. Is that what should make an act legal? Majority rule. A liberal like you should shudder at the concept.