• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Of tolerance, open-mindedness, bigotry, liberalism and foreign affairs


Spinelli

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
373
Have you ever thought about the new political agenda? I'm very interested in how new and old issues are propogated. The formula seems to be thus:

  1. If it has been opposed by society then it is worthy of consideration. The more opposition to it the more worthy it has become.
  2. Initial opposition has be criticised by framing the opponents as close minded. Calls are then made for open-mindedness.
  3. Appeals thereafter can be made on the basis of tolerance.
  4. If the opposition presists the opponents can be told to keep their opinions to themselves, not be be judgemental, and above all that "I respect your opinion" (this is important for some reason)
  5. The critics that remain can be dismissed as being "bigots" or "bigoted". Funnily enough the context in which the word is used illustrates what the user thinks it means but if they were to refer to a dictionary they'd find it means something else entirely.
  6. Human nature can be pointed to (ie. you can't change people or their behaviour)
  7. Appeals to transnationalism can be made (ie. "it is acceptable in other countries", and so it should be allowed here)
  8. The country can be run down (ie. "why can't we do anything right?", "look how well it works in Holland")
I want to share the following story from a recent news article. I'm not open-minded about it. I am completely against what has happened. I think it is abhorrent. The comments below the article, in some places, are more insightful than the article itself and they illustrate, in some places, just this kind of thought process.

With all these factors in mind above in mind .... how can a commitment to open-mindedness, tolerance, non-judgementalism, etc. etc. etc. be squared with this ....

Dutch court overturns paedophile association ban ยท TheJournal.ie
 

wilting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
353
To me the limit of tolerance is the advocacy of harm to others.

Seems to me that this group is comparable to a group that advocates violence, be it for religious, racial, grounds or whatever. What they are calling for is to harm a group of people, whether they believe it or not, and therefore a ban could reasonably be justified.

Whether or not a ban would achieve a better or worse result in terms of child welfare, I couldn't say. It might be better to have these people out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed rather than driving them underground, where they may act on their desires. If a ban would give the best result, that's fine by me. I honestly have no idea one way or the other.

This probably shouldn't be left up to the courts, but rather legislated for, whatever the correct response is.

Your list is ...simplistic and unhelpful. There is no one size fits all explanation or solution for things.
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,466
I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
 

Spinelli

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
373
To me the limit of tolerance is the advocacy of harm to others.

Seems to me that this group is comparable to a group that advocates violence, be it for religious, racial, grounds or whatever. What they are calling for is to harm a group of people, whether they believe it or not, and therefore a ban could reasonably be justified.

Whether or not a ban would achieve a better or worse result in terms of child welfare, I couldn't say. It might be better to have these people out in the open where they can be seen and ridiculed rather than driving them underground, where they may act on their desires. If a ban would give the best result, that's fine by me. I honestly have no idea one way or the other.

This probably shouldn't be left up to the courts, but rather legislated for, whatever the correct response is.

Your list is ...simplistic and unhelpful. There is no one size fits all explanation or solution for things.
I didn't say that there was a "one size fits all explanation or solution for things."
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
I have no idea what this means. Children are sexually unaware up to a certain point and all adults are, to all intents and purposes, sexless creatures on whom they depend for protection, nourishment and guidance.

The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.

The only benefit I can see for allowing such a group to exist would be to flush out paedophiles into its ranks, where they can be identified and certified as a danger to society, after which they should be tagged.
 
D

Dylan2010

The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.
and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?
 
D

Dylan2010

The notion that any organisation of adults should lobby for the right to have sex with children is monstrous.
and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
and so would a communist group that advocated the end of private property but would you ban a group on the basis that their ideas were obscene or because they actually conspire or facilitate criminal activity?
Promoting a political philosophy doesn't equate to doing permanent, irreparable harm to society's most vulnerable members.
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
Sick twisted f*cks.





Martijn Uittenbogaard, the leader of the kiddie fiddlers, Party of Neighbourly, Love, Freedom and Diversity.

Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PNVD sought to have the legal age-of-consent lowered to 12, and, in the long run, completely eliminated (except in dependent or intrafamilial relationships.) They reason that only "coerced" or "dangerous" sexual activity should be punished. They also aimed to equalize the legal age where one can perform in pornography with the legal age-of-consent. Prostitution would be legal at the age of 16.[4] The PNVD wanted to legalise private use of child pornography (calling outlawing thereof "censorship" in the platform) and allow non-violent pornography to be screened on daytime television. Their platform also included legalization of humans engaging in sex with animals.[2]
Treasurer Van den Berg claimed that, "Rearing is also about introducing children to sex".[7] Because of their controversial viewpoints on children and sexuality, they were often called "paedo(philes)-party" by the people and in the media.
Also, the party's platform called for separate imprisonment facilities for sex offenders, arguing that the country would otherwise have indirect torture laws.[4]


Marthijn Uittenbogaard with his chums Ad van den Berg and Norbert de Jonge.

van den Berg was convicted of abusing an 11 year old boy and was discovered to have an under-age boyfriend.
 
Last edited:

Mikey Moloney

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
739
I don't think it's completely absurd to imagine a future where the rights of children extend to sexuality.

Tolerence is rationally necessary, considering the moral fallibility of the staus quo as outlined in the OP.
Christ almighty. This must be one of the most reprehensible posts I have ever read. Jimmy Saville likes this.
 
D

Dylan2010

Promoting a political philosophy doesn't equate to doing permanent, irreparable harm to society's most vulnerable members.
but I would trust 99% of parents and most adults out there to consider child abuse to be an almost "lynchable offense". Your post says "doing" so its incorrect.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
but I would trust 99% of parents and most adults out there to consider child abuse to be an almost "lynchable offense". Your post says "doing" so its incorrect.
:confused:
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
With all these factors in mind above in mind .... how can a commitment to open-mindedness, tolerance, non-judgementalism, etc. etc. etc. be squared with this ....
Quite easily. Did you read the article? The group hasn't broken any laws and isn't a threat to Dutch society.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
Promoting a political philosophy doesn't equate to doing permanent, irreparable harm to society's most vulnerable members.
Some political philosophies would probably have that effect if enough people believed in them.
 
D

Dylan2010


you compared "promoting" a political philosophy to "doing" permanent damage.... which is not a like for like comparrison , I'd fully agree that any act where an adult abuses a minor is a serious criminal offense.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
Quite easily. Did you read the article? The group hasn't broken any laws and isn't a threat to Dutch society.
Your idea of 'threat to society' might be out on a limb, in the eyes of most people.

I know the Dutch cherish their reputation for tolerance and liberalism, but in some respects they're just moronic.
 
D

Dylan2010


you compared "promoting" a political philosophy to "doing" permanent damage.... which is not a like for like comparrison , I'd fully agree that any act where an adult abuses a minor is a serious criminal offense.
 
D

Dylan2010


you compared "promoting" a political philosophy to "doing" permanent damage.... which is not a like for like comparison , I'd fully agree that any act where an adult abuses a minor is a serious criminal offense.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
you compared "promoting" a political philosophy to "doing" permanent damage.... which is not a like for like comparison , I'd fully agree that any act where an adult abuses a minor is a serious criminal offense.
I see you're having the same trouble as me with double posts.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
Your idea of 'threat to society' might be out on a limb, in the eyes of most people.

I know the Dutch cherish their reputation for tolerance and liberalism, but in some respects they're just moronic.
Do you really think that there is enough merit in the ideas espoused by this group that there is even the slightest danger that they might be taken seriously?
 
Top