   Only in the Netherlands! (I'm disgusted)
I was just watching the news, and the most digusting thing ever passed: A group of pedophiles started their own political party and vow for: Having child pornography shouldn't be criminal Age of playing in porn should be 12 years and older Age of consent lowered to 12, and in the near future removed completely(However, if you're HIV infected, then there's an age limitation of 16 O_o) Prostitution is legal from 16 years or older Sex with animals should be legal Voting from 12 years and up Alcohol, smoking, drugs from 12 years and olderBeside these, there are bunch of other topics such as free public transport, etc. to make it look like a real political party.I'm ashamed to be Dutch right now. This is just disgusting. Children shouldn't be having sex. This kind of things make sexually abusing children easier, and these sicko's just wanna get child porn in a legal matter.
  I am not opposed to the idea of legalizing smoking, alcohol and drug use at the age of 12, especially seeing as I debuted with most of those things at age 10, and it made my life a living hell from that point onwards because most such things have a 18 year restriction here.And also, what could be so bad about voting at 12 years old and up? Actually, people in Norway are concidering lowering the age of voting for city Mayors etc to 16 years. Agreed, 16 years is higher, but I still don't see the big deal.However, the rest of the things you listed sounds bad. :(   ;  I would only be ashamed to be Dutch if they win any elections. Other than that it smells like free speach to me, which is a good thing.   ;  I thought the age of consent was 12 in the Netherlands anyway? Still, sounds awful.   ;  I punched a pedophile in the face today.   ;  Sounds like our Green Party gone bad!   ;Quote:Original post by Afr0m@nAnd also, what could be so bad about voting at 12 years old and up? Most adults aren't informed enough to vote intelligently. Adding even more uninformed people to the voting pool isn't going to improve anything.Unless you want the Free Ice Cream And Pony Rides Party to rapidly gain popularity.;  I think it's fair to say most reasonable people would be vehemently against child pornography and so would oppose the candidates or platforms put forth by such a party. You shouldn't look at this new development as a bad thing; in a more oppressive society, people proposing unconventional ideas are killed, silenced, marginalized, or otherwise rendered ineffective. Instead, be glad that you live in a country where the free exchange of ideas (even morally abhorrent ones) is not something that the government can silence. This is a sign of good national health, with the principles of democracy alive and well.Hate groups and other "easy targets" are sort of like the canary in the coal mine for free speech: they serve as a barometer for the health of freedom of expression. For instance, imagine an organization that tries to inform the public about serial killers, casts them in a positive light, sponsors a National Serial Killer Remembrance Day, puts forth campaign platforms that advocate for reduced jail sentences for serial killers, and so on. Most of us would look askance at someone who was a member of the group, and probably react with revulsion to the idea of such a group existing in the first place.But if we wipe out this organization purely because it goes against mainstream society and without some other justification, we may be headed down a slippery slope; the boundary zone of acceptable free speech shrinks a little more. If we reject speech about things that are morally abhorrent to us, then we may start rejecting anything that's outside our comfort zone. (Replace "serial killers" with "homosexuals" in the above paragraph, for instance.)To be sure, there are some cases where speech should not be allowed. For instance, if the serial killer group is passing out automatic-fire handgun conversion kits to disgruntled schoolchildren, we should shut the group down on the basis that it deliberately incites violence, even if the possession or distribution of such kits is not per se illegal.   ;Quote:Original post by ToolmakerChildren shouldn't be having sex.How old were you when you had your first orgasm? I was 12. Of course I had no idea what was happening and was afraid I had broken my penis, which just makes me think that children should be given more information about sex sooner. I would have really appreciated it. Children are going to explore sex anyway, so any information you give them can only be a good thing. Don't think I wasn't 'playing doctor' with the girls before that.   ;Quote:Original post by smart_idiotQuote:Original post by ToolmakerChildren shouldn't be having sex.How old were you when you had your first orgasm? I was 12. Of course I had no idea what was happening and was afraid I had broken my penis, which just makes me think that children should be given more information about sex sooner. I would have really appreciated it. Children are going to explore sex it anyway, so any information you give them can only be a good thing. Don't think I wasn't 'playing doctor' with the girls before that.I was raised sexually freely, and I was well informed about sex. I knew when I had my orgasm what was going on, but there's a limit. When a 14 or 15 year old has sex with a 12 year old girl, it's (partially) acceptable for me. However, the main goal behind this is not to let minors have sexual intercourse freely with other minors, but to allow adults have sex with 12 year olds.These people get a kick out of young kids, and thus, the minimum age for sex should stay 16. At this age, children are old enough to decide wether or not having sex with a 40 year old is acceptable. 12 year olds mostly do not have this capability.Until 2002 the minimum age for sex was 16, and 12 in special cases(If you were a minor yourself, having sex with any other minor would be allowed from the age of 12, while adults can only have sex with adults).Toolmaker   