Response to a thread from the Republican only section

[Norseman]

These posts were originally from the Republican only forum, in this thread. I'm responding to them here since I can't debate there, and debate is pretty widely interpreted there.

There are many issues that i dont agree with the left on, but some are more scary than others. the one that has me worried right now is the strange obsession by the left to encourage sex at younger ages.

Find me one person on the left who encourages that minors have sex. It doesn't even have to be someone from CF (although some from CF would count too).

and i mean really young. The movement is scattered, which makes it seem like less of a threat, but when you put the instances together, you get a frightening image of where this agenda is heading.

Agenda? "The left" is a largely unorganized group composed of probably a hundred million people plus. I cannot even begin to comprehend how you can possibly think there's some secret agenda held by a hundred million people which has somehow remained a secret.

OK, first off, there is the vote in california to allow girls of any age to have an abortion without the parents even knowing.

No, the vote was to bar requiring that girls inform their parents before they get an abortion. They were already able to get an abortion with or without their parent's consent, they just had to inform them. The law for requring parental knowledge would have had a provision that if the girl feared abuse or mistreatment from informing her parents, she could talk to a judge to get around that. I think that's just pointless. For it to be useful, either the judge has to decide based almost solely upon what the girl tells him (in which case it's like it is without the law, just there's pointless bureaucracy thrown in), or the judge has to have an investigation, in which case there's no point to talking to a judge because the parents will probably end up finding out either from investigators, or from family members who they questioned (and again, there's a lot of pointless bureaucracy thrown in). I think it's better to just let the girls use their discretion.

Childred at any age can purchase condoms.

Like it or not, children will have sex. They have sex hormones, they act upon them. 13 or 14 is the age at which historically they would have started a family, that is what they are genetically programmed to do, and it's no surprise when some of them do it. Now, would you rather they have unprotected sex, get STDs or children, have to get an abortion, or be barred from having an abortion (if the pro-life crowd has its way) and raise a child while they're still in their teens? Or, would you rather that they just use a condom?

Organizations like the ACLU are stanch supporters of organizations like NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) where on their sites, they frequently talk about ways they like to lure young boys into sexual encounters.

From the ACLU's FAQ:

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

Liberals in power like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have pushed for an age of consent of 12. TWELVE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

I think 12 is a little low. Are you aware that the age of consent in Iowa is 14? I think that's a little better. I would much rather have a test than an arbitrary number, though. I mean, who cares what number we pick? If the capacity for informed consent is something you reach, it isn't something you reach because of the specific amount of time between you and your birth. Setting a number just doesn't work, some people will reach it sooner, some people will reach it later.

Toys like "Bratz" have the dolls dressed in the same clothes often worn by hookers. Even celebs love the idea of children being sexual. Madonna has set up her own set of childrens fasion including see thru tops for children between the ages of 2 and 16.

This has what to do with liberals?

Liberals even defend the rights of convicted pedophiles and sex offenders.

Do you understand the concept of a right?

A man who has admitted fantasizing about having sex with young children in a local park has been supported for his "right" to visit that park at any time.

Ok, ban him from that specific park. If he's a child rapist, he can do it somewhere else. If he isn't, you just banned him from a park for no reason. Kinda useless if you ask me. On the other hand, by not banning him from the park, and by keeping that precedent in the future, there is a greater chance that people like him will act like him, rather than making sure to keep their mouths shut. When their lips are loose, it will help in the future if a child from that park goes missing. The police will have a good idea of where to start looking.

Judges seem to have little problem with pedophiles and often hand out light sentances.

For example?

So what can we gather from this?

Pop Culture encourages child sexuality...

Which, obviously, liberals are responsible for, assuming it's even true.

...the law prohibits intervention while encouraging sexuality

I think I just went over that, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean about prohibiting intervention.

...and punishment for sexual acts with children is so miniscule, that the threat of punishment is almost non existant.

Which I'm waiting for an example of.

Very very sad

If it were true.

And the left won't say a word against groups like NAMBLA spewing their poison. They claim they don't support such but then turn around and give their support by defending them.

Have you ever heard this quote before?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

I vote we simply castrate all pedophiles. Using a dull knife.

What if you do it to an innocent man? Oops? Aside from the fact that it's unconstitutional, I don't think it would do much anyway. I doubt that people who commit crimes commit them while thinking that they will have to pay for their crimes. Also, once you do that, no pedophilles would ever plead guilty, which would lower conviction rates and increase the number of pedophilles on the streets, ergo, you get the opposite effect.

JUST castrate them? I say that it should be death BY castration. And let them be the ones who do the killing. I'm sure we can come up with a device that would do the cutting when the pedophile got "excited."

Culture of life indeed.

Hmm..how about this? Anyone who catches a pedophile molesting their child, or knows that the pedophile molested their child, or who sees a pedophile looking at their child, or thinking about their child, is exempt from any penalties for extracting extreme vengeance upon the pervert. Self-defense rules.

How about not? Let's say I don't like someone and I have a child. Hey, wait a second, I think that guy thought about molesting my child, stone him to death!

Shooting? Hell, no. A traitor's death instead; hung by the neck until not quite dead, then drawn and quartered between horses.

Even better, just throw them into the general prison population. Those guys could come up with appropriate methods of punishment we could not dream of.

Exactly. Life in prison is the best possible punishment. Death is the easy way out.

Ok, ok, guys. Calm down, take slow deep breaths until you are feeling better. You know that we can't do those things and think about what the dems will think when they read this thread.

Well I can't say I was surprised. I feel dirty now. I've become desensitized to this.

I still say that all violent felons should be drop shipped to a desert island, or, heck, any island where there is no chance of escaping. We can send them food, or not, and let them live with eachother since they have forfeited living with decent human beings.

There is no island with no chance of escaping, unless it involves death immediately upon arrival. It's much more secure to keep them in a prison complex. Putting them into prison also creates an environment where they have to live with each other, but where the guards can shoot them with rubber bullets/beanbag rounds and tear gas etc. if they try to kill each other. As I said above, death is the easy way out.

Meh, I'd say one or the other. Cut off his member and he'll actually want to die.

As for the guillotine itself, I actually think it should be reintroduced, but updated for today. Thanks to the modern technology of hydroulics, the blade would cease to stick and it would be sure to chop off the head the first time due to the added power.

lol well you have put some thought into this. I agree lets put it in the middle of town and call it the Peace Keeper. OR EVEN BETTER!!! Lets line the Mexico border with them..that way we wont even need to build a wall...

Man, I read the rest of that thread and I was just fine, and then I got to this. Ugh, I'm going to be sick. That's it, I'm done with that thread. I've got to keep what remains of my dinner down.

 

[Zoot]

Better nutrition and stuff (or perhaps hormones in meat - who knows?) is causing kids to hit puberty at ages like 9, 10, 11. They get sexual urges. In my country, there was a recent case of an 8-year-old boy (I think) sexually touching girls in his class. Some people might like to blame this on sexual images on TV and stuff, but the human animal is the human animal, and when those hormones hit, kids instinctively know what they want to do, regardless of social norms.

I'm reminded of A.S. Neill writing in Summerhill about one of the girls at his school. They were quite open about sexuality and sex education at Summerhill, and this girl picked up a copy of some mildly risque book called A Young Girl's Diary or something. Where kids in other schools would have excitedly read over the accounts of sexuality in the book, she chuckled at it a bit and discarded it. The mysticism of sexuality in our society does all kinds of damage, I think.

But I'm musing. I've never met a person who would identify themselves as "left-wing" who did not approve of:

1. An age of consent of 16 or over.
2. Punishment/disincentive for breaching this age of consent.
3. Sex education in schools.

Promotion of child sex? The only person I've heard of doing that considered himself extreme right, an American-style libertarian.

 

[FreepInduced]

Thanks for posting this thread. The contents in the thread were pretty twisted, however, I appreciate knowing the thought process of those who oppose the left. Unfortunately, their ideas were way off.

 

[Ceris]

This thread violates the spirit of having the Democrat/Republican subforums. Please as a kindness to each other, don't try to go and drag debates from the subforums into GPD without the consent of the member you are replying to. Thank you.