I'm unsure about all this. One the one hand, it seems just like a case for banning 'em, and maybe use of some people with loud metal sticks that go "bang" and make other people fall down. On the other hand, so long as these people aren't actually acting on any of their desires, or breaking the law, why don't they have the right in a democracy to form a political party to do this. It's a tough one, banning them is drawing a line in freedom, and is basicly saying "You can have freedom so long as we don't find what you want to do repulsive", and I'm generally someone who doesn't believe in limits on freedom of expression. Not banning them is possibly OK'ing something that is fairly clearly to pretty much everyone but them, immoral(or sick and twisted as I'm sure many people would prefer). Nexxo, can we get some psychological insight into the mind of a peadophile please? Can they be "cured"? Is the desire to have sex with children even a sickness, or just a sign of a massively distorted morality?
to be a total stickler all that the dictionary "implies" is that they are sexually attracted to children, it does not imply what they do or buy. Hopefully if they do set up a party and have a HQ it can be hit by a rather large truck.
Whisperwolf: i agree but i did say "this to me would imply................" if you are attracted to a person/type of person or have a interest in something/some one etc i would argue that you are possible going to look further into it. ie of you are attacted to Cameron Diaz. you will look for pictures/videos on the internet of her. and IN MY OPNION people who are attracted to children will look for material on this matter and then MAY progress to commiting the act in further life, when they have found that they dont get a kick out of photos/videos any more.
OK i just didn't like the progresion of fact to opinion, felt like BBC reporting to me. I also have to say that that i agree with Specofdust, If people were banned from forming a party to push for what they believe, where does it end. I mean ok their principles and ideas might suck goat, but it is their right to protest for their ideals. Otherwise as soon as anyone protests against any law you will have to use the same measures. I.E people protesting against strict copyright, people protesting against canabis illegality. Yes these ideas are vastly different to lowering the age of consent but the theory behind the protest is surely the same.
Uhm Holland is most likely one of the safest places on the planet. This party will last for 2 weeks and then it will disapear. But exploiting children won't. Recently there was a show on the Dutch tv about a undercover journalist that went to tai-land on a socalled sex-tour. (wich basicly means the touristguide tells you the best places to pick up young children to have sex with) As long as people are willing to pay for it wont disapear. Just heared on the radio that this party won't be able to exist. even tough it isn't official almost everyone has voted against them to come on the agenda for the next debate wich means the goverment don't see them as a legal party and you wont be able to vote on them. GreetZ Nick
Sorry, not my experience. I do agree with you on your other point, though. Paedophilia is basically the product of an arrested psychological development. These people feel attracted to children because they are psychologically quite immature themselves, and also feel very threatened by intimacy. To them, relationships and sex are about power, and they cannot handle adult relationships in which they simply do not feel in control. Children, on the other hand, are non-threatening, powerless and psychologically and sexually naive. Paedophiles may have little insight into this because they are psychologically immature. Some will of course rationalise their behaviour because they know it is disapproved of. They do this by argueing that they "love" the child (even though their concept of love tends to be quite distorted) and that as long as it is not violent, subjecting it to a sexual relationship is not doing it any harm but rather an expression of love. This is crap of course-- a child cannot consent to something it does not really understand, and hence it is being coerced into something inappropriate for its stage of physical and psychological development. Paedophiles again do not see this, because they are quite immature themselves. But they are not alone in thinking that children are simply "mini-adults" with basically the same cognitive and emotional capabilities and insights that adults have. This latter point is important. I frequently have to sigh, roll my eyes and explain to otherwise quite bright parents that children do not think and reason and understand things like adults do. Their brain, knowledge and life experience are still under construction. This is why it is fundamentally wrong to involve minors in strictly adult activities, or expect adult behaviour, reasoning or self-regulation from them. After all, we do not let them drive cars, handle guns or a credit card for a reason. Sex is no different. But back to Paedophiles. They tend to become the way they are because they have been submitted to abusive or rather inappropriate attachment experiences themselves (not necessarily of a purely sexual nature). It is learned behaviour-- but learned at a very early age and pretty hard to shift later in life. Moreover the person has to want to change --and as I said before, they don't see their behaviour as a problem.
The downside to democracy is that even morons get a voice and a vote. Personally, I find racists even more repugnant than this dutch mob (after all, children used to regularly get married at 12/13) but I still have to stomach the BNP being allowed to stand for election. Let them have their "political party". Just be sure never, ever, to let them win. San
I'll grant you that you are semantically correct. The title for this thread was taken verbatim from the article and not writtern by me. As the completly unofficial SD news poster, you wouldn't believe the number of things that I think are interesting but decide not to post because they are so poorly written. Titles are even worse, and I will sometimes change a title to more accuratly convey what the article is trying to say. Appearently English is no longer a requited course to get a journalism degree
I found this line amusing.. So... the raping an animal (can an animal consent?) by a species totally alien from itself (i'm sure that goat never thought of humans in that way) is not abuse?
Can't decide whether this thread is funny or sad. Little of both, I guess. Personally, I think the whole "18 is adult, full stop" thing is just stupid because age clearly has no indication of responsibility, but this is just a little bit disturbing... Couldn't imagine it'll go anywhere other than getting the candidates run out of town, though.
HAHAHA. The article was so ridiculous that I don't think I'm quite capable of making a rational comment on it. Seriously, what the fudge!
There was a case here recently where a guy was pimping out the animals at a farm he was supposed to be watching for neighbors on vacarion. One of the "clients" was kicked by a horse he was attempting to, um, mount, and died. The "pimp" was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of the customer, but not animal cruelty because the prosecuter felt he could not prove that the animals were being abused.
This article and thread are....weird As to a point raised along the way, in terms of legal speak, I believe there is a difference between 'intent' and 'thinking' about an action. I could 'think' about murdering someone, or I could 'intend' to murder someone, i.e. go out and purchase a gun, follow a person around to learn thier schedule, plan the best way/place to do it, etc. Naturally, its a huge gray area, but people don't deserve to be locked up/put to death for having thoughts of a certain type, only when there is true 'intent' to commit a crime. That gets us into 1984 kind of stuff if we lock away people for merely thinking about a crime. (naturally all of this is my opinions, yours may vary so don't flame me, I don't have my asbestos suit on )
This really makes me ashamed of being Dutch, these 'people' don't even deserve death as that would be too light a punishment.
Don't be ashamed to be Dutch. You think these people only live in Holland? Holland just has the freedom to do things like these( not the kiddy porn but making a party)
This is sick, and the worst of it all is, in the off-chance this party gets some power, paedophiles from other countries are going to flock to the area. This is filth.
that is true, of course. However it depends on whether one can regard the founding of a party that tries to legitimise a criminal activity as a step towards the planning and execution of such a criminal act. Finkelhor's six stages of abuse model suggests that one of the steps towards abuse is to overcome social obstacles in committing the abuse. The founding of this party could be regarded as such. In any case it certainly helps to overcome internal inhibitions (stage 1) by giving the act a semblance of legitimacy or social approval. Then there is the difference between thinking of something, and publicly advocating it. I'm sure that we all have thoughts and beliefs that other people may or may not take offence at, but although we are entitled to having them and living by them, we are not necessarily entitled to subject others to their consequences. And after all is said and done, we all know certain things are just wrong. Child sexual abuse is one of those things.
