Dutch people suck

As you may have heard, a group of pedophiles want to start a political party in the Netherlands. Now nearly 90% of all people here want the government to step in and do something about it. A majority of people even want to make "promoting pedophilia" (whatever that is) punishable by law.

Next up: thought crimes! I hate this fucking country.

>>1 loves them kids.

lol, the pedo party

I think promoting negrophilia should be punishable by law.

>>1

      Creating a political party based on a sexual preference is just fucking stupd as it is.  But election should be really entertaining over there watch them run.  can you imagine the debates and mud slinging?  You have the automatic negative of being the candidate that is from the party that is openly pedophile,  every commercial against you is going to start "candiadate is a pedophile", if i get to pissed at you in a debate i will just call you a pedophile, and none of this is even dirty campaining yet.  i am just calling you what you openly are.  like me calling a liberal party member a liberal.

>>5
Yes, the party and most of its ideas are stupid. If someone wants to promote sexual reform, creating a political party such as this is one of the most stupid things you could do and will only work against you.

However, what pisses me off is how people react to it. Sure, these people have ideas that we consider to be sick, but they're IDEAS. If this party gets forbidden, what will that mean for politics? So in the future you can't start a political party if you admit to being a pedophile, even if you don't act on it? Will we not be able to discuss the age of consent or other such matters anymore as it will be branded "promoting pedophilia"? Will it be forbidden to discuss items that are currently not legal?

And if pedophilia is a sick thing that only a very small part of people engage in, why are they worried about them starting a political party at all? I am 99% certain they won't even be able to acquire the 570 signees needed to even START the party, let alone get enough votes to earn a seat. More importantly, if they DID, that means that pedophilia is not a minority item and a relatively large group of people are being "oppressed" (I'm using this term loosely, it's obvious this party is of course only working in their own interest) just because a majority considers it to be "sick".

I personally think there is nothing wrong with the current laws of age of consent (16) and such things (at least in Holland it is not enforced in such a horrible way as in the USA that a 17yo who has sex with a 15yo gets jailtime, there is some unwritten leeway) but to think that even DISCUSSING it should become illegal is the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time.

Apparantly people in Holland don't believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means you accept people to express ALL of theoir opinions, even if you think they may be deplorable.

>>6
If the 17 year old wasn't a sexual predator he could wait a year, surely.

16 as the age of consent stands.

>>7
LOL, you act as if you are some authority in the matter. Fact is, only in the USA is that law applied so rigorously. I don't like everything about Holland, but in this area, it is vastly superior to Amerikkka. :)

>>7

ooh so thats why in evert civilized (read: not america) countrys like japan it is 13 amirite???

>>7

Yeah exactly, if it's True Undying Love(TM) like the pedos always claim it is, surely he can wait a few years? If he can't, he should be fucking people his own age instead.

>>8
>>9
>>10
gb2 Canada, niggers.

>>10
I am pretty sure that in many cases this is what they decide to do. But that does not mean that the law is actually right. Fuck, it's just an arbitrary number, only a religious zealot would follow it to the letter. If you think that people magically become able to think for themselves and give consent when they turn 16, you're a total moron. Well, from your post, it sounds like you are.

Your argument is like forbidding homosexuals to have sex and then saying "Well, if they really love each other, they won't need to have sex!" Totally stupid.

it is in fact a completely arbitrary number. What would you have the law say "age of consent is... you know... somewhere around there... uh... how about 12-16, you choose?" How the fuck would that be enforced?

You are the retard because you clearly have a pedo agenda and you are conveniently ignoring that OLDER GUYS LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUNG NAIVE GIRLS. THIS HAPPENS VERY OFTEN AND IS USUALLY A VERY UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE FOR THE GIRL. that is why the fucking law is there!

>>7
Motherfucker calling a 17yo a predator?
He's still a fucking kid himself!!

Fucking Christian go cut yourself

>>13
As I said before, I think 16 is an okay ballpark figure, with a little leeway depending on the age of the older party (the people who think the 17yo in a relationship with the 15yo is a predator are truly lunatic) but you have to admit it is arbitrary. Some people will be emotionally "mature" by that age and able to make a proper decision, some will not. Does that mean it should be abolished? No. Does that mean it should be followed to the letter? No. It means that in most cases you shouldn't make a problem of it if both people don't have a problem with it themselves either. Now if a 30yo starts a relationship with a 15yo, that's when you have to get leery. But even then it could be true love, but yeah, in that case I'd advise them to just wait until the 15yo is legal. More importantly, I'd really like to hear from the conservatives here why a 15yo and a 17yo having sex is sick, but a 16yo and a 50yo is fine. Oh wait, that should be banned too, right?

And saying I have a "pedo agenda"? Hardly. I have a freedom of speech agenda. I thought Americans were so fond of that? Now...

>OLDER GUYS LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUNG NAIVE GIRLS.

This assumes four things:
1) ALL older guys like to take advantage of young girls.
2) ALL young girls are naive.
3) ONLY older MEN want to take advantage of young girls.
4) ONLY young WOMEN can be naive.

Please provide proof for all of them.

>THIS HAPPENS VERY OFTEN AND IS USUALLY A VERY UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE FOR THE GIRL.

If it happens very often, then why are you acting as if it's only something a sick minority engages in? Perhaps it is something natural and the law is actually forbidding what is simply human nature? And it's unpleasant for the "girl" (apparantly only girls are at risk)? Maybe because society tells her it is "wrong" to do it? Maybe because you never hear about the ones for who it was NOT an "unpleasant experience"?

Hey guess what you retarded genius, killing, raping and stealing is human nature too (cf. HISTORY), but it's illegal. WHY? CAUSE IT AIN'T FUCKEN NICE!

Moreover, not everyone who illegally caries a concealed weapon is out to commit to kill people, but IT'S STILL FUCKING ILLEGAL.

>>16
Looks like you aren't able to think for yourself.

IT IS ILLEGAL SO IT IS WRONG!

We're having a discussion here. You don't have to be afraid, nobody is going to touch your peepee if you can't come up with any better arguments than "it's illegal!"

Also, "killing, raping and stealing is human nature too"? I disagree. Stealing, perhaps, because it is the easiest way to acquire something. An animal would also rather steal meat than go hunt for it, because it requires the least effort (of course, he isn't aware of the possible penalties if he gets caught). Raping? Well, the whole concept of "rape" is a social one, of course (otherwise why do you think animals don't get traumatized by "rape"?) but procreation is indeed human nature. Killing? Disagree. Like animals, the only time they go out of their way to kill is if they need food, or in the case of their own species, when they feel they are in danger. Someone who gets pleasure from killing people, like a serial murderer, is really not acting according to "human nature" at all. It's actually a deficit that only humans (because of our complex intelligence) can have.

To be attracted to a young mate? Yes, that is indeed human nature. How young? Well, I think once they hit puberty and develop breasts and a figure that is naturally attractive for humans, they become sexually attractive for them. Are they emotionally stable enough to have sex yet at that time? That's what's up for debate. It varies from person to person, but I don't think someone who has just started puberty can make proper decisions about it yet. I don't think they have to wait until they're fully developed either, though.

It's sad that in theory such an innocent topic gets spun in such ways that it becomes pretty much impossible to have meaningful discussions about it.

>>16

why cant you respond to his posts wit hsomething more than two sentences of text? maybe you dont really have a clue what your talking about ??

do people actually read these longass posts

>>1
I have to say I'm surprised too.
I'm sure most people are totally against the idea, and they have every right to be.  But in a country that liberal it seems very odd that they would make any sort of idea or thought illegal.  If 90% of the people are really against the pedo party then they really have nothing to worry about.

Just so you all have a better idea of what this political party is all about:


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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.

Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."

The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

Copypasta from Yahoo News.

>The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

Yes, they pride themselves on not being a "one-issue" party! :) Another funny item on their political agenda is that they want a total ban on meat and fish consumption.

>The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials.

Can anyone explain the logic to this reasoning?

>>22
Not funny.  It's a good idea.

Can anyone explain the logic to this reasoning?

Paying for CP == paying terrorist/muslims/communists.

Actually if you want to base it on maturity levels than men mature mentally slower than women.  therfore a 25 y.o. man may actually be going for girls about his maturity level when he approaches a 16y.o. 

      On the political party issue I completly agree with >>6 on the issue of wheter they should be allowed.  I mean the party will just become the laughing stock of the nation, and will eventually die.  you get to say you allow all forms of political debate in your nation, it's all win for you.  if you try to destroy them what happens, they get even louder, they get on telivision as being a "oppressed" party of idealists, and it all ends up bad for you.  I mean the only reason to think that the party is a risk is if you think there is enough population to support them that they can gain power, and that i sincerely doubt.

>>22
    "The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all."
      I am a legalize drugs person myself, i think that you have the right to destroy your body in any matter available.  I stand that the really hard stuff "crack, heroine" should probably remain illegal both because of their danger and because of where who they come from.  However on those lines of thought for legalizing drugs, how can you then say that all fish and meat is now illegal.  If the party really does get some power i know where my next financial investment will be.  the Dutch Blackmarket for meat, poltery, and fish.  I can make a killing, and make money while i am at it.
   "The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials."
        Just sounds hipocritical to me.  after all if it's legal to make, posess, and anything else with, y should it be illegal to sell.  and by trade does that include giving away?

>>23
Fucking veggie. Trade doesn't imply an exchange of money, just an exchange of goods.

>>24
>I stand that the really hard stuff "crack, heroine" should probably remain illegal both because of their danger and because of where who they come from.
One argument used by people who think it should be legal is that if it weren't illegal, it would be possible to better control who makes it and that no shit gets created. Kind of the same argument the pedo party uses with their proposal to legalize child porn, but of course in that case there are still "children" (lowest age 16) used to create it, and the "can they make a good decision at that age" question comes into play again.

I personally think that the current age limit of 18 for prostitution and porn is quite low, and wouldn't mind if it were raised to 21 or something around that. Especially since in those first years right after highschool people may get into financial trouble easily and "resort" to prostitution or pornography. On the other hand, I think the age of consent of 16 that is currenly used is too high, but as I said before, since it isn't applied in such a rigorous way as it is in America, it's a good figure for general use. Some will be younger when it happens, some will be older, but people don't make too much of a problem about it when someone had sex when they were legally "underage" with a person who is a few years older.

And I think people make too much of an issue of it as it is. It's just sex.

>However on those lines of thought for legalizing drugs, how can you then say that all fish and meat is now illegal.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. They say they are for absolute freedom for people (hence why they say people should be able to have sex at any age and walk around naked) but then put forth a concept that would limit the freedom of 99% of the people of the country (funny aside: there were some recent studies that indicated vegetarians only made up about 150,000 people of the 16 million citizens of Holland -- yet the way they portray themselves you'd think almost half of people would be).

One item that "supports" their argument that they want to give kids more freedom is that they want to allow people to vote from the age of 12. Personally, I think that's a more scary thought than allowing people to have sex from the age of 12. :)

Actually if you want to base it on maturity levels than men mature mentally slower than women.

I claim this as a bullshit stereotype, based on my own experience at high school.

Are you saying a teenage girl is mature? GTFO virgin.

No, it just means they start bitching at an earlier age.

It is a psychologoical and psysiological fact that females develop faster than males.  this has everything to do with nature.  females are needed to breed for as much of their life as possible to insure pleanty of offspring.  men aren't needed so much in this process, therefore nature makes women mature faster so that they get as much breeding in as possible durring their life.  men mature latter because it doesn't matter so much.

It is a psychologoical

No.

psysiological fact that females develop faster than males.

Yes.

Learn to differentiate. Mental "maturity" is caused by the environment, and I dare say that girls mature no faster than guys. Stop worshiping the opposite sex and open your eyes for crying out loud.

the psysiological maturity rate effects the psyhological maturity rate.  Women do emotionally and mentally mature faster than men, it is a statistical psychological fact.  some is caused by the physiological maturity rate, some on the social environmental factors, and maybe on a hundred other things.  Hell I am not male bashing here, it is just a fact that men and women tend to greatly change in developmental pattern at the age of puberty for obvious reasons.  Until then the development rate, while differing in nature depending on the environment, is very simular in speed.

>>31
males and females are treated different ways in society, and thus turn out different ways. while the make-up of their body and mind are factors, this does not make them mature at a faster rate.

the body of a female does develop faster, but has nothing to do with her mind. in general women are more sensitive and caring. this is their nature. males are less sensitive, and tend to care less about, well, stupid shit.

each person develops at a different rate. some people stop developing. some continue to develop throughout their lives. that's the difference between a person and a robot.

Impale paedophiles.

Women do emotionally and mentally mature faster than men, it is a statistical psychological fact

Oh really? This is bullshit until you can provide references to articles in a respectable peer-reviewed journal.

I already know the answer to this, at least for moral development, but I hate listening to whiny clueless idiots who claim shit they have no evidence for. "statistical psychological fact" (out) your ass.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/965406622.Zo.r.html
     exact psychological articles are harder to find and will take me a while.  and i never mentioned moral development at all.  that is a whole different can of worms that has almost nothing to do with age.

>>35
That article is about lifespan you idiot. What the fuck does that have to do with mental "maturity"? We've already established that girls sexually mature earlier, so the physical side isn't up for debate.

and i never mentioned moral development at all.

Oh! Wow! So you've realized this can of worms is a bit more complex than you thought! But wait, let's back up here. If you didn't mean moral development, what did you mean? Social development? Motor skills? Problem solving? Or...?

i mean psychological development.  Moral development is far far different than mental development and emotional development.  I can develop intelligence, cognative ability, and rational thought are all a part of mental development, and are probably about the same for both male and females, assuming educators give them both the same attention.  Moral development i assume you mean the development of morals, "thou shalt not kill" and all that stuff.  I can't say when they develop because they don't so much develop as they are fed to us by society in order to protect itself.  Emotional development is the development and reliance on emotions, then there is the basic maturity maturity of acting responsibly, taking responsibility for actions etc.  these last two develop differently in men and women more than the first two.  Women are generally just more emotional in general general and develop to get there at a faster rate than men.  This could very well have to do with the way boys and girls are raised differently in the first place, or it might be a bit more genetic.  I mean nature requires that women be more emotionally bound to their children in order to raise them.  it is common in many species.  Males tend to be free roaming to spread their seed.  We are still somewhat like this no matter how much we preach ourselves an "advanced" species we are still an animal species and have ourselves a nice bundle of instinct to go with that fact.  Responsibilit for actions wise, I think this is more social than genetic.  On the surface you have women with more emotional development tend to act much more on those emotions, and act on their feelings.  this can cause some ammount less of maturity on this level.  or it can be thought of that men are acting less on their emotions and feelings having fewer of them instintivly, and we tend to care less about the effect of our actions unless directly confronted with them so we have less responsiblilty in that manner.  You can go either way, I call it a tie personally.
     Now all this puts women ahead only in the emotional maturity level of course.  however when it comes to relationships what is girl of 16-20(maybe before) looking for that a boy isn't,  emotional attachment of course.  therefore it is only natural to look outside that range of male candidates.  this takes you either into younger boys(situations far less likely) or older males.  Now age differences get far to large in most of the cases pointed out here to fall under this rational, but i understand to a point a male between 18-21 having a relationship with a 16 year old girl.
       it is also a fact that men TEND(in no way absolute reference here) to be attracted to younger females than themselves and women older males than themselves.  This could be that because of when men finally do start to look for emotional attachment in some form the women their age are alreads (a) past them in maturity still, (b)taken by an another older guy, (c) simply no longer after men that close to their age anymore due to the previous conditioning.  This said they go after women that are after what they have, younger women.

>Social development? Motor skills? Problem solving?
     Motor skills and problem solving skills are either already mostly developed by this stage of development, or the primry groundwork on these skills has already been laid so the skills simply continue to develop on the existing foundation.
      Social skills?  That is a tough one.  Male and Female social skills are far different from eachother, especially when dealing with members of the same sex.  Females tend to look for a more emotional attachment and hold on to every little incident in a relationship thoughout the course of it.  Men tend to be competitive, and forgiving in their relationship. If two bitterly hate eachother they can hate eachoter for years.  If two men bitterly hate eachoter to that degree, they will typically (barring action by an involved female party) either find some way to get over it and get on with their lives, or one will kill the other.  Women relationships tend to develop slowly, with them not being "friends" until they know eachoter for quite some time, and the relationship will often be more comlex than the male friendship.  This also makes them slower to break, and sepparations more difficult.  Male relationships tend to be fast developing, you meet in a bar have a few drinks and you will be like you were friends for years.  A woman may apear to have a simular relationship with women they just met, but they would rarely consider them friends where a man would.  becase the woman has many more definitons for people like general aquaintance, and such that men don't usually care for.  So social skills develop at about the same speed you could say, as long as they are dealing with the same gender.  When dealing with the oposite sex i would say that on average niether one developes particularly fast or well in that manner.  The fact that these two groups of people can tolerate eachother is at times remarkable. 

For the love of God, you just keep getting worse. As if your original claim wasn't bad enough, now you're making more of them. Don't you ever learn from your mistakes? Or do you just enjoy showing your ignorance? Maybe you're a really good troll?

Look, mate, there's this whole field of psychology out there. It's big, and it's fascinating. How about you go study it for a few years before making so many sweeping and nutsoid claims. The shit you're writing above is pure cultural stereotype, possibly even anecdote, and has nothing to do with science.

So, references. References, or GTFO.