What the hell is this?

[Hatake Kakashi]

So now a bunch of really creepy people are trying to take official office (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=cp-tos-news-h-06&idq=/ff/story/0002/20060530/1305465815.htm) in another country. This has to be the most peculiar thing I've ever seen in elected politics... not to mention a bit disgusting, to understate things.

I have to wonder how these people plan to get elected... kissing babies is an old politician's trick, but I think the parents will get a bit disturbed if they're being french-kissed and fondled.

[ZERO.]

Holy fucking shit this is some fucked up shit.

[pictish]

Does it really matter if a party like this is set up? If the majority of people don't just dislike the party, but believe that it should be illegal for them to exist, I can't imagine them enjoying much support.

To be honest, they're just not going to get anywhere. Far less extreme policies are put under strict scrutiny and debate when passing laws in any country - even if it's more liberal than other's.

Oh, and I will admit that I love the fact that after everything else, they propose free train travel for all - y'know, just to tempt you. "I don't want my 12 year old having sex.... but I am appalled at the state of train prices!"

[Hatake Kakashi]

I also wonder how they'd propose to fund that... railways, at least in America, are underfunded as it is....

Still, all things aside, whether or not they get any further is kind of moot. I'm a little disturbed that they would even be able to form a party based on such themes....

"And what is your political foundation, Mr... Heindlich?"

"I'd like to fondle your young children and watch donkey porn."

"Alright, fair and good... just sign right down here..."

Somehow, I know that some part of this post is going to come back to haunt me....

[Bob The Mercenary]

Well, it can officially be said that I have been dethroned as the head "weird news item poster".

We all can agree that this is seriously messed up, but when you look at it closer, the Netherlands are really only a couple decades ahead of what will eventually be happening in the U.S. For example, in the U.S., if abortion is made legal, they'll push for zero parent notification. And that would be NAMBLA's wet dream. And they would follow that up with trying to make animal sex legal. Then, after a few iterations, they would end up saying something like "if we can have sex with animals, what's wrong with having sex with children?"

Maybe that's going a little too far, but it's basically the pattern that all pedophiles would love to see occur.

[Hatake Kakashi]

This line still just kills me... even after reading it a few times....

"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,"

Umm... pardon my colorful metaphors... but last time I checked, according to the world's (and even most religious) standards.....

You ARE fucking criminals!

Jeez... who declared it to be "Share-the-world-with-goddamn-retards" day anyway?

[GARUD]

This has to be a joke. Anybody knows that pedophiles are criminals. Heck, I beleive sex should be 18+ (sorry guys) but removing the age limit will only encourage these guys. Since they will be free to do it, there was no way that anybody could stop them or object.

One pedophile case was made earlier on in the year, in Australia. A pedophile made a website where he said that one day "Pedophiles would be looked on as heroes one day" and "A childs sexuality needs to be encouraged and nurtured from young". These aren't exact quotes, but they go along those lines. The website has been shut down now, and the guy was pt behind bars, thank [insert diety here].

Children in preschools and kindy getting sex ed. I can just imagine.

"You put your willy into a LOVE HOLE! This can be ass, vagina, mouth, nose or any knife inflicted hole possible. Now you try it."

"But there are only boys here. Where are the girls?"

"The girls are learning to lick carpet and screw Mr Ed. Now go on, nude conga line everybody!"

"Miss, I don't have a partner to put my willy in their love hole."

"Well little Jhonny, I just so happened to bring my dog to school today! And he has a love hole where the poop comes from!"

"Yay poop!"

These people make me sick! There even gonna have violent porn in the night, and pornos in the day. Order the damn adult channel if you are horny for [insert diety here] sake!

[Dragonsbane]

That article made me sick. People like that must never be allowed into power.

For example, in the U.S., if abortion is made legal, they'll push for zero parent notification.

Huh. Perhaps I'm missing something, but would you mind explaining this to me?

[Althane]

Slipery slope, allowing sex with animals or children will probably lead to the other eventually. It really is showing the moral degradation of the world these days.

I mean, serioulsy, that is heavily fucked up. Fucking fucked up, even.

[Silly Kitty]

Wha? Bwah? Huh?

Reading this article makes me sad. Really, really sad. I thought being a pedophile was illegal, disgusting, and something to be hidden. What kind of person would be proud to be a pedophile? Teaching sex ed. to toddlers? That's horrible! This whole article is horrible! Horrible.

What is the world coming to?

[Mirai Gen]

Well, it can officially be said that I have been dethroned as the head "weird news item poster".
I dunno. He still has to top your Dogs Being Used As Shark Bait fake article.

We all can agree that this is seriously messed up, but when you look at it closer, the Netherlands are really only a couple decades ahead of what will eventually be happening in the U.S. For example, in the U.S., if abortion is made legal, they'll push for zero parent notification. And that would be NAMBLA's wet dream. And they would follow that up with trying to make animal sex legal. Then, after a few iterations, they would end up saying something like "if we can have sex with animals, what's wrong with having sex with children?"
I dunno, seems like a slippery slope to me. The series of conclusions is a bit unusual.

But, as a related note, is anyone going to take this party seriously? I mean I'm all for political setups and organized steps taken in your direction, but can you actually see a bill passed by the Pedophilia Party?

[Archbio]

For example, in the U.S., if abortion is made legal, they'll push for zero parent notification. And that would be NAMBLA's wet dream. And they would follow that up with trying to make animal sex legal. Then, after a few iterations, they would end up saying something like "if we can have sex with animals, what's wrong with having sex with children?"

I know this is off-topic, but I really hope this is a joke. I mean, yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy in there, but it's the least of the statement's problem. Most glaringly, the poster seems to ignore that abortion is already legal is most of the U.S. (I thought it was in all but one state, but this is making me doubt).

I think this is a pretty big thing from someone who lives there and talks about the dreadful implications to miss. Then the abortion -> animal sex thing I think classifies as a non-sequitur. I mean, talk about a leap.

[Althane]

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

And what is wrong with that?

"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.

You certinantly have, and by the way, thanks for letting us know who you are. We'll have the authorities over in a jiffy.

"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.

Well, no shit sherlock, you -are- fucking criminals!

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves.

Toddlers given sex education? That is FUBAR. WAY FUBAR. As for the 16 & up prostitution? Are you idiots? Prostitution is a scab on society, an ancient job that shoupld have been annihlated years ago. It does nothing but take advantage of people, as well as leave a whole area open for STDs 'n shit like that. Plus, 16? Kids that age are WAY too young to know what they're doing. Hell, I still think 18 year olds still don't know what they're doing half the time. (and I'm 17)

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.

o.o;;

*strikes the Netherlands from travel list*

People, clothes were made for a reason, have you no shame? And legalizing drugs, great idea, lets cause MORE lives to be ruined through the fucking up of crack addictions, kill more people through heroin OD's... fucking brilliant!

[Archbio]

People, clothes were made for a reason, have you no shame?

They were made to protect against the elements.

[Althane]

They were made to protect against the elements.
And to cover ourselves. I mean, seriously, would you like to see Fatboy Bobby over there walking around naked, jiggling like jelly with every step?

I think not. e.o

[Melfice]

I must object to what you say about scrapping the Netherlands from your travel list, Althane.

And trust me, a genuine Dutchman, that this party will soon be boycotted. Politically not, ofcourse, as that would be obstruction of the freedom of political view, or something vague like that. But the people will boycot them.

So, please. Don't let this newspost discourage you. We aren't all crazy.

ps. I do agree on the free traintravel though... I mean, we are paying way too much for what we're receiving in service and all that. But that is way off-topic.

[Archbio]

I mean, seriously, would you like to see Fatboy Bobby over there walking around naked, jiggling like jelly with every step?

I think not. e.o

But that would be my problem. Unless it was an actual health hazard, like stomachs being turned inside out.

[Althane]

I must object to what you say about scrapping the Netherlands from your travel list, Althane.

And trust me, a genuine Dutchman, that this party will soon be boycotted. Politically not, ofcourse, as that would be obstruction of the freedom of political view, or something vague like that. But the people will boycot them.

So, please. Don't let this newspost discourage you. We aren't all crazy.

ps. I do agree on the free traintravel though... I mean, we are paying way too much for what we're receiving in service and all that. But that is way off-topic.

Hehehe, the Netherlands never really were on my travel list. No offense, but I find places like Italy and Greece much more fun (maybe because my bro is a classics freak? Eh...).

I mean, if I ever take a huge trip to Europe, it'll be in there somewhere (assuming freaks liek that don't take over, you never know. e.o)

As for being crazy, don't worry, my natural asumption is that everybody I don't know well is batshit crazy. :)

Archbio: Yes, yes, protection from the elements, except have you ever really thought how much protection your clothes ctually give? Not much (well, from what I wear, usually kahkis and a t-shirt)

Meh, I say it's a combination of protection, and not wanting to see each other naked.

[Archbio]

Archbio: Yes, yes, protection from the elements, except have you ever really thought how much protection your clothes ctually give? Not much (well, from what I wear, usually kahkis and a t-shirt)

Meh, I say it's a combination of protection, and not wanting to see each other naked.

Well, when you said they were "made" for something, I assumed you meant originally. Right now there are a variety of reasons behind the social conventions and, yes, laws concerning decency in clothing (and protection is a secondary concern, you're right about that, even when and where it's an important concern). But nothing that I feel really justifies said laws (and certainly not the incoherences found among them).

So I feel this is a somewhat legitimate proposition that I had to rescue from the jaws of wackiness.

Edit: Legitimate but unrealistic, of course.

[Dragonsbane]

Arch, are you to stand up for that viewpoint by going around naked? We would all be very impressed if you did.

Photographic evidence required, of course.

[secretskull]

If this party isn't boycotted, I will be losing what little faith I have left in humanity. Quick Question: Why aren’t these people being arrested? They practically turned themselves in!

[Arlia Janet]

It's a stupid idea. It will never get anything accomplished except maybe it will aid police in hunting down child molestors.

Don't take this thing seriously. It's the political equivalent of some 12 year old on WoW saying he's going to kill you.

[Althane]

Well, when you said they were "made" for something, I assumed you meant originally. Right now there are a variety of reasons behind the social conventions and, yes, laws concerning decency in clothing (and protection is a secondary concern, you're right about that, even when and where it's an important concern). But nothing that I feel really justifies said laws (and certainly not the incoherences found among them).

So I feel this is a somewhat legitimate proposition that I had to rescue from the jaws of wackiness.

Edit: Legitimate but unrealistic, of course.
*snickers*

I think those laws stand to protect the innocent (read, what 42% of children under the age of 18 that don't know what sex is and all. Maybe 25%....)

But yes, stand up for your position, you were born naked, you damn well have the right to walk around naked! (and you will die naked... but in your clothes! :D )

And I demand pictures. Er, you can skip the crotch area though. :sweatdrop
And no, I didn't mean originally. Originally, clothes were made to make sure our balls and such didn't get ripped up while hunting (damn that would hurt!) and so on. Plus, they were nice and warm.

Anyone else thinking of the Gary Larson cartoon, where it has a bunch of cavemen standing around a guy on a podium wearing animals, and the guy is saying "Behold, the KNIFE!" (so that they could then skin the animals, and just wear the skins, not the whole thing... hehe)

:sweatdrop

Edit: Just want to say, I think this post has the most emoticons I've ever used on this forum. Evar.

[adamark]

You guys are being so close minded!!! Don't think for a minute that your own ideas about "right" and "wrong" are based on anything important. People should understand that right and wrong don't exist. If all the pedophiles in the world moved to one small country and ran the government, they could just pull it off, making it legal and therefore totally legit. Who are you to tell another country how it should be run? you are a bunch of cultural imperialists, that's what you are.

[Mirai Gen]

And to cover ourselves. I mean, seriously, would you like to see Fatboy Bobby over there walking around naked, jiggling like jelly with every step?
And that would change things how?

I mean, this is in a world where psychologists like Rikki Lake program people into the idea that true beauty is on the inside. They forget to add the message of "Have some decency" at that episode, though.

On topic;

Adamark, you do realize that it's a party brought together by the unity under a flag of child molestation, right? I mean...I wouldn't trust them off of that, and neither would anyone else.

[Archbio]

I think those laws stand to protect the innocent (read, what 42% of children under the age of 18 that don't know what sex is and all. Maybe 25%....)

Nudity does not equal sex. The conflation is one of the negative impacts of the social conventions in question.

I totally support my right to wear clothes when I feel like it, though.

As for the Alternative Universe adamark, I vote we keep him instead of the original version.

[Lockeownzj00]

Ah, pedophilia--one of the few paradoxical fetishes. You might be right in fantasy land, boys, but your "preference" inherently involves a breach of the 'mutual decision' sex is supposed to be.

Too bad we need a party of MJs to tell us drugs should be legalized.

[Dragonsbane]

You guys are being so close minded!!! Don't think for a minute that your own ideas about "right" and "wrong" are based on anything important. People should understand that right and wrong don't exist. If all the pedophiles in the world moved to one small country and ran the government, they could just pull it off, making it legal and therefore totally legit. Who are you to tell another country how it should be run? you are a bunch of cultural imperialists, that's what you are.

Your sarcasm is wonderful, and perfectly relevant both to the discussion at hand and the stance some of the Discussion forumites seem to have taken in general.

[TheSpacePope]

Too bad we need a party of MJs to tell us drugs should be legalized.

Goddam right.


Is it some kind of joke on the behalf of a more conservative party to show how lax things are in the netherlands?

[Althane]

And that would change things how?

I mean, this is in a world where psychologists like Rikki Lake program people into the idea that true beauty is on the inside. They forget to add the message of "Have some decency" at that episode, though.

On topic;

Adamark, you do realize that it's a party brought together by the unity under a flag of child molestation, right? I mean...I wouldn't trust them off of that, and neither would anyone else.


Off topic: Beauty on the inside? There's a type, there, but that doesn't change that if you're some hideous Stephen Hawking (sorry dude, had to think of a smart yet ugly scientist. I think you're cool. Please don't kill me) person.... yeah.

Ick, true beauty may be on the inside, but the outside sure as hell doesn't hurt.

On topic; I can't decide if you guys are serious about drug legalization through a party of ... MJ's?

I'm really against most drug legalization. The only one I might be apathetic to is marijuana. And that's only because it's already so damn prevalent. But I wouldn't want my kid smoking it.

Cocaine and Heroin, to pick a few, have no redeming qualities that I can think of, besides killing stupid people, and crystal meth? What good is that? They really just ruin lives and steal money from those stupid enough to use them, and give them to criminals.

If all the pedophiles went into one small country, I would fully support a blockade until it was wiped out. That's just one fetish that, acted upon, leads to one of the most hideous crimes that I can think of, barring actually killing a child. Maybe even worse.

[Lockeownzj00]

At first I thought it was off topic so I wouldn't engage it, but it is] one of the positions of the party, so...

I'm really against most drug legalization. The only one I might be apathetic to is marijuana. And that's only because it's already so damn prevalent. But I wouldn't want my kid smoking it.

Alright. Agreed, then. It shouldn't be separated from alcohol in any way--if you wouldn't want someone doing it, fine, but that makes it a social problem, not a legal one.

Cocaine and Heroin, to pick a few, have no redeming qualities that I can think of, besides killing stupid people, and crystal meth? What good is that? They really just ruin lives and steal money from those stupid enough to use them, and give them to criminals.


Even though I think there are, let's assume there aren't. You could say the same about virtually any other activity--that it has no redeeming qualities. Granted, drugs are an even more dangerous activity, but all the more reason they should be regulated strictly to prevent misuse.

So, first of all. Cocaine and heroin are both addictive (on different levels, heroin moreso). The problem with "powdered" drugs, however, is that they can be cut with many toxic materials without the buyer ever knowing. And since it's unregulated because it's illegal, there's no way to have a system of checks. Therefore, the entire thing is based on trust, costing more lives than if it were legal.

Your last part about giving money to criminals is circular logic. If it were legal, there wouldn't be criminals to get it from* therefore causing the money to go not to criminals, but to lawful citizens. Making them legal dissolves the international crime syndicate surrounding them.

This isn't to mention that we're filling our jail cells with people who like the nice feeling of ingesting a certain substance. Let's go after the people who sell bongs rather than bombs.

All this, and I still wouldn't propose dropping by A+P to pick up 5 grams. It would involve multiple levels of permits, tests, and age limits, leaving only those who truly feel that the effort is worth it.

*it is still possible that there would be some who would sell drugs illegally, but only in the sense that cigarettes and alcohol are--uncommonly, due to a standard of quality in "official" goods.

[Melfice]

Is it some kind of joke on the behalf of a more conservative party to show how lax things are in the netherlands?

No, it's no joke, last time I read into this. It's not shown over here, but I'm damn sure all political parties, from the CDA to Lijst Pim Fortuyn, are completely appalled by them.

And our politics are somewhat lax, sure. I mean, with the Red Light District and coffeeshops, but trust me; we're not going to be that lax.

[Nique]

I enjoy the fact that the most (arguably) radical forum member assures us that even in an age of complete moral relativism, you still couldn't legitimize child molestation. That, I take some comfort in.

What I appriciate on a more ironic level, is the bits about 'regulation' and 'testing' regarding the legalization of drugs... Not becuase it's erronious in a legal/political sense, but becuase of my vague understanding of anrachy, and locke's support of the notion.

[Althane]

Alright. Agreed, then. It shouldn't be separated from alcohol in any way--if you wouldn't want someone doing it, fine, but that makes it a social problem, not a legal one.

M'kay, fine.



Even though I think there are, let's assume there aren't. You could say the same about virtually any other activity--that it has no redeeming qualities. Granted, drugs are an even more dangerous activity, but all the more reason they should be regulated strictly to prevent misuse.
Some activities have no redeeming qualities, agreed, but even fewer have negative qualities. I mean, seriously, drugs fuck you up, isn't the inner city thing proof of that? Crack addicts lying around, gang fights over drugs (don't tell me THAT would end. If it became legitamate, they'd still be fighting over something, just to fight) all kinds of shit. Plus, if you enforce strict rules about regulating it (I'm getting ahead of your post, ah well), then people will still juts want to break the rules and get it from a much easier source.

So, first of all. Cocaine and heroin are both addictive (on different levels, heroin moreso). The problem with "powdered" drugs, however, is that they can be cut with many toxic materials without the buyer ever knowing. And since it's unregulated because it's illegal, there's no way to have a system of checks. Therefore, the entire thing is based on trust, costing more lives than if it were legal.

Heroin can kill you in one shot, that's pretty deadly. Also, addictive stuff like this probably isn't too good for you. I wouldn't know, my uncle just managed to fuck up his life roally because of drugs. So yeah, I wouldn't know at all.

Also, if you legaized it, yes, you'd not lose more people due to toxic cuts. But you'd be giving people addictive drugs. I mean, okay, we have addictive perscription drugs, but this is a bit different, this is "recreational" use. You'd lose productive members of society (granted, can't be too productive if they're stupid enough to loose their lives to drugs...) to the addictive effects.

And then if you try and stop them, they'll go get them from other people, the criminals. And I disagree about it being circular logic. Criminals can sell it (supposedly) well cut, for cheaper, and its unregulated (all they have to do is steal the cut shipments, something they won't find impossible, I'm sure). There's always going to be criminals that try to profit from people who want it cheaper.

All this, and I still wouldn't propose dropping by A+P to pick up 5 grams. It would involve multiple levels of permits, tests, and age limits, leaving only those who truly feel that the effort is worth it.

Which is why the criminals will still be selling badly cut, dangerous drugs at high prices to gouge the addicted customers who can no longer do the effort, or can't pass the tests.

*it is still possible that there would be some who would sell drugs illegally, but only in the sense that cigarettes and alcohol are--uncommonly, due to a standard of quality in "official" goods.

You can see I disagree. You might say I'm hopelessly cynical. I might say you're hopelessly optimistic. Meh.

[Meister]

You're not a criminal if you're a pedophile. Being a pedophile means being sexually attracted to children and that's it. You're very, very likely to become a criminal if you act upon your urges, which I think makes pedophiles very unfortunate people indeed, but them's the breaks. Anyway, there's a very important distinction between having those urges and acting on them, and it should be paid attention to. I'm a bit tired of the knee-jerk reactions that always crop up in this kind of topic.

[Lockeownzj00]

Not becuase it's erronious in a legal/political sense, but becuase of my vague understanding of anrachy, and locke's support of the notion.

Besides the fact that I don't actually endorse pure anarchy, how are organization and regulation not possible in such a state? In any case, I'm talking about the present day and creating a standard.

I mean, seriously, drugs ---- you up, isn't the inner city thing proof of that? Crack addicts lying around, gang fights over drugs (don't tell me THAT would end. If it became legitamate, they'd still be fighting over something, just to fight) all kinds of shit. Plus, if you enforce strict rules about regulating it (I'm getting ahead of your post, ah well), then people will still juts want to break the rules and get it from a much easier source.

In what way? Can you say anything other than "they ---- you up?" In terms of health, almost all drugs do little to your health; the drugs target addiction, but don't expressly stop you from eating or bathing and such. So biologically speaking, they can easily be moderated with practice.

Crack addicts lying around. Okay. Alcoholics lying around? The same thing. It's a problem, but making it illegal now makes these people who are in a personal downward spiral criminals. Yeah, we're really going to help them by throwing them in jail.

On gangs: okay, they'd still be fighting over something. I don't even understand what your point is with this. You even admit that they would fight about something other than drugs. So drugs aren't the crux of the problem. They don't cause gang warfare. They are an excuse for it.

Lastly, I your point about breaking rules, but it would only be slightly more difficult than acquiring alcohol. Trust me--once it is legal, while some people will still want to choose a "cheaper, easier" alternative, once the risk of legal retribution is gone, there wil be little incentive to get it from other sources.

Heroin can kill you in one shot, that's pretty deadly. Also, addictive stuff like this probably isn't too good for you. I wouldn't know, my uncle just managed to ---- up his life roally because of drugs. So yeah, I wouldn't know at all.


I'm chalking this up to lack of research. Your portrayal of heroin makes it sound like a poison. It is an opiate. Heroin can kill you in one shot--alcohol can kill you in a few. You can also snort or smoke heroin. The problem with heroin is dependence--a very serious issue. But I can tell you from personal experience that for a non-addictive personality it is easy to try it and stop at the drop of a hat. Granted, not everyone has such will power. Precisely why it should be standardised and taught. Drug education simply does not exist right now, and with real drug education, comes real knowledge of the risks.

I don't deny what happened to your uncle. It has a huge potential to ruin a life. I can only extend sympathy for those who have let it control them. But about 4 out of the 5 factors that help ruin said life are from social implications. If some of the consequences are 'your friends will shun you,' and 'you have to hide it because it's illegal, those are states which can change and aren't directly due to the drug. It is much the same as a homosexual--most of the reasons he might have any self-loathing is because of social attitudes towards him, but it doesn't make it wrong. No, I'm not implying that drugs are an innate trait. Yes, I am implying that it is something which people do which they are damned for and need not be.

Addiction is a dangerous, slippery slope. Some people can dip their toe in and manage to come out, and some fall all the way in. But this is exactly why I wouldn't put a gun in the hands of an untrained professional--even now, alcohol is so readily handed out. Before you do anything, you have a duty to know about it and what it does to you. I, for example, will never inject a drug--it disgusts me, but I know if I did, I wouldn't be able to stop. So I have that control. The problem is, drug addicts are shunned and can only find solace among themselves (or in rehabilitation clinics, but until that point that is an unappealing extreme); since people refuse to understand their plight and instead view them as dirty criminals, they often have no one to turn to (and this I do know first hand).

Also, if you legaized it, yes, you'd not lose more people due to toxic cuts. But you'd be giving people addictive drugs. I mean, okay, we have addictive perscription drugs, but this is a bit different, this is "recreational" use. You'd lose productive members of society (granted, can't be too productive if they're stupid enough to loose their lives to drugs...) to the addictive effects.

Really don't see how you'd lose productive members of society. Especially if you imposed a limit on it. The people who do drugs right now are your bankers, your co-workers, your friends. I honestly believe it's possible to balance the lifestyles. Many people have been doing it fine--I remember one case on metafilter where a guy had his job for 20 years or so. Then they randomly drug tested him and he was fired, because he had THC in his system. He was a valued member of the company and never failed to do his job--but because he like to smoke a joint or two on the weekend, he got ------.

And then if you try and stop them, they'll go get them from other people, the criminals. And I disagree about it being circular logic. Criminals can sell it (supposedly) well cut, for cheaper, and its unregulated (all they have to do is steal the cut shipments, something they w]on't find impossible, I'm sure). There's always going to be criminals that try to profit from people who want it cheaper.

And how does that differ from fake Rolex watches...? Pirated video-games...? Moonshine...? People will always go to the black market, but leaving no viable alternative makes them always go there.

Which is why the criminals will still be selling badly cut, dangerous drugs at high prices to gouge the addicted customers who can no longer do the effort, or can't pass the tests.

Honestly, I can only see a select few doing this. Do sex addicts get desperate and put on used condoms? I mean, there will always be desperate people who will lose their sense of reason. But again I stress that once there is a safe alternative, people won't want to take the risk.

[Nique]

Besides the fact that I don't actually endorse pure anarchy, how are organization and regulation not possible in such a state? In any case, I'm talking about the present day and creating a standard.

Mostly that was in jest - and it would be possible. Anyway, there is a legal double standard when it comes to drug use, and frankly, if someone has decided to NOT do drugs, I would feel odd about it if their main motivator was becuase of it being illegal. It would have no bearing on my stance were recreational majrijauna use to become legal... just, dont let people smoke it in public. Have the curtesy to eat it in a brownie or something, people. No one wants to smell that.

[TheSpacePope]

I damn near have an orgasm when I drive by a skunk, I love the smell. (of pot and pot related things) I think that I should be able to walk up to a police officer, and have him light up my doobie. But I am over 21 and am resonsible enough to not overdoo it.
So there should be regulations.

But you know what, this isn't a discussion about drugs.
It's about pedophelia.

Keep that in mind.

Hey wait, What ARE we talking about?

Cough* Cough*

[Hatake Kakashi]

I damn near have an orgasm when I drive by a skunk


We're talking about some sick people and what gives them orgasms, of course. The party endorsing pedophilia, porn, drugs, and beastiality. I just had to use one of the main parts of your post that fits the context... even when taken out of it. :cool:

[invghost]

its been removed

[Hatake Kakashi]

More useful post, please. What has been removed?

[Tommathy]

Definition Clarification: Pedophiles are people attracted to pre-pubescent children, who are more than likely to be under the age of twelve. Ephebophiles are attracted to those going through pubescence, those approximately twelve to eighteen.

Anyways, I'm moderately curious now, how many people think it's damaging for a fifteen year old boy to have sex with a thirty year old woman, like most of those news stories with the teacher-student relationships that've been in the headlines?

[Dragonsbane]

I damn near have an orgasm when I drive by a skunk, I love the smell. (of pot and pot related things)

This creeps me out more than anything Krylo has ever said...terrifying. I think if you're experiencing that much of a reaction, you should lay off on the stuff for a little while.


Anyways, I'm moderately curious now, how many people think it's damaging for a fifteen year old boy to have sex with a thirty year old woman, like most of those news stories with the teacher-student relationships that've been in the headlines?

Damaging or not, all I know is that some of the teachers I had at the tender age of fifteen were hot. Given the chance, I'd have sex with them.

[TheSpacePope]

Just a cute way to say that i like the smell.
I also like the smell of hamburgers, but I'm probably not going to lay off eating. For now.

[Azisien]

This vaguely reminds me of someone who "ran" as an Independent candidate. They showed his video promo on a news show. His main platform was making people addicted to crack clean up the streets and take it to the landfills. And if they brought enough garbage to the landfills, they would be issued crack.

And of course, the man looked like he had just been doing crack, was doing crack, or had every intention of doing crack after the video shoot.

[Nique]

Anyways, I'm moderately curious now, how many people think it's damaging for a fifteen year old boy to have sex with a thirty year old woman, like most of those news stories with the teacher-student relationships that've been in the headlines?

I think something should be made clear; The problem, generally, is not with the differance in age, so much as it is with what is/was very likely the developmental state of the younger party (for example, a fifteen year old boy).

An older person, likely more expierienced in life, can easily manipulate a young, less expierienced person into doing something they (the younger) may, at the time, belive is a good idea, or fun, or positive in some way. At an age where physical change isn't even complete, mental changes are very likely not either. Bad decisions can easily, and often are, made during teenage years, making it a non-ideal time for "mature" relationships. A sexual relationship on such uneven ground seems tantamount to little more than, again, manipulation on the older party's part.

I assume you're referring to the much-publicized teacher-student newly weds, and while it may have worked out for them in the end, which is great (and I think most people, myself included, wish them well) I can't help but think that this is a one-in-a-million example - one that might be erroniously used to defend pedophila. Locke's earlier statment about consent applies, even into late teen years.

Also, that paticular case wasn't just about sex, and even if it would've been, I still think it was wrong for the older party to allow the relationship to continue like that so early in that young man's life.

However, a 15+ age differance, while unusual, is not bad in itself.

[Fifthfiend]

But you know what, this isn't a discussion about drugs.
It's about pedophelia.

You know I'm really not seeing what's the discussion here, to be honest.

I mean I'm pretty sure we all agree that fucking little kids = wrong.

Pretty much any subsequent 'discussion' has been at best tangentally connected with the original topic, which makes sense, really, because there's not a whole lot of discussion left after you've said fucking little kids = wrong.