Liberal Elite perform mass child-rape

reply to post by Sinnthia


Yes you did imply it. You try writing better.

Is it my problem that you do not see the obvious? How much more obvious do I have to make it before you see it? I believe if you are liberal you are wholly incapable of perceiving it, only capable of seeing it as a slight to liberals everywhere. You and all the others take it as though we're saying liberals are pedophiles or potential pedophiles. You seem completely unable to comprehend the fact that it's a critique on one of the ideals of liberalism, and not a baseless insult to liberals. You guys seem to love confusing the issue and saying conservatives can be pedophiles. We know that. We're saying this issue is because of one of the logical consequences of liberal ideals. We're not saying all liberals are pedophiles in the making.

You teach children how to have safe sex, teach them how to use contraceptives and give them sex education, yet you deny they have the right to consent to sex. Why the hell are you giving them free reign of the car keys, yet expecting them not to drive? Does that make any sense? If children are incapable of consenting to sex, why the hell are you teaching them it's okay to be having, and how to have, sex? Oh they will be having sex anyway, you say. Well, then, are they incapable of consenting to that? If you follow the logical consequences of sexual liberation you can see the whole adult-child age limit is quite arbitrary and makes no sense if your goal is to abolish traditions that can't be argued for rationally. A logical conclusion of having that mindset is to either 1) lower the age limit; or b) allowing children control of their own bodies. The OP was pointing out that is was rationalized to do such things because of the ideals of liberalism. And it's true, it's possible to rationalize such things if we rigorously experimented with the ideals. Yet most people here completely failed to grasp that point.

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Billmeister
The way I read the articles, this was a 70's revolution movement that went too far, and is only "officially" attached to left-wing politics through Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

Not at all. The school is liberal/leftist. The Kommune mentioned was socialist/leftist. The perpetrators were Green, Left, Liberal and Socialist. The philosophies were based on liberal "sexual liberation". Anti-Vietnam, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Corportatism, Sex-Lib, Womens-Lib...its all liberalism. See also my last post.

Its very important that the facts not be obscured again, like they have in past mass-rape incidents involving leftists.

OK last post and then I'm done... unless logic becomes accepted again... by this, I mean that your position is based on emotion and not logic. I and many other well written contributors have attempted to counter your position through logical argument, yet all you have is emotional responses built on leaps of logic.

Take your response above (thanks for taking the time to respond). By this logic, someone who marched against the Vietnam war is more likely to commit child sexual abuse than someone who believed the war was justified. (I hope you see this as faulty logic.)

You use far to broad a brush to be able to support your arguments and make things worse by limiting yourself to shades of black and white.

If you limited your argument to something like "radically liberal sexual education of children leads to a greater occurrence of child sexual abuse" then the OP may have gone in another direction.
However, you insisted that a correlation exists between leftist political and economic ideals and a higher occurrence of child sexual abuse, a correlation which simply does not exist. (By the way, I and many other contributors tried to give you an "out" and steer you to a more logically based argument, but you refused to take it.)

I am, however, willing to give you another chance. In order to prove that a logical correlation exists as offered in your OP, we must look for proof of it. (To help you, I am even willing to make the assumption that, somehow, a country's political and economic system automatically translates to a radical version of these views in child sexual education.)

Let's start from the extremes: LEFT = (according to you Liberal) vs. RIGHT = (according to you Conservative)
the farthest leaning economic system: COMMUNISM vs. FASCISM
the farthest leaning political system: DEMOCRACY vs. DICTATORSHIP

We must then find examples today, or in history, which represent these situations.

All communist experiments I know have a dictatorship (i.e. far left economic system, but far right political system) therefore we cannot use them as examples. We must move in a little toward the center toward socialism, where we find (not pure examples to be sure) countries in South America and Scandinavia with both a leftist economic system (socialism) and a leftist political system (democracy).

As for the comparison, examples of fascist dictatorships can be found in pre-WWII Germany, Italy and Spain and in post WWII South America and Iran (among others).

From here you must find factual data that shows how those social and political experiments which tend to the left have a greater occurrence of child sexual abuse than those to the right.
Again, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that the child sexual education of these countries would somehow be a radical reflection of their economic and political leanings.

Please do not use your isolated private school as an example... it has already been factually refuted with 2 examples of abuse in far right Military Colleges and an uncounted examples in very conservative Catholic institutions.

Thanks for any response. I think your conclusion will confirm what I and many astute others have said, that there is no correlation with someones political and or economic ideal and their propensity to commit child sexual abuse.

You emphasized it, were asked to defend your view point in a logical manner, have yet to do so, and am giving you another chance.

Thank you very kindly,

the Billmeister

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Yes you did imply it. You try writing better.

Is it my problem that you do not see the obvious? How much more obvious do I have to make it before you see it? I believe if you are liberal you are wholly incapable of perceiving it, only capable of seeing it as a slight to liberals everywhere. You and all the others take it as though we're saying liberals are pedophiles or potential pedophiles. You seem completely unable to comprehend the fact that it's a critique on one of the ideals of liberalism, and not a baseless insult to liberals. You guys seem to love confusing the issue and saying conservatives can be pedophiles. We know that. We're saying this issue is because of one of the logical consequences of liberal ideals. We're not saying all liberals are pedophiles in the making.

You teach children how to have safe sex, teach them how to use contraceptives and give them sex education, yet you deny they have the right to consent to sex. Why the hell are you giving them free reign of the car keys, yet expecting them not to drive? Does that make any sense? If children are incapable of consenting to sex, why the hell are you teaching them it's okay to be having sex? Oh they will be having sex anyway, you say. Well, then, are they incapable of consenting to that? If you follow the logical consequences of sexual liberation you can see the whole adult-child age limit is quite arbitrary and makes no sense if your goal is to abolish traditions that can't be argued for rationally. A logical conclusion of having that mindset is to either 1) lower the age limit; or b) allowing children control of their own bodies. The OP was pointing out that is was rationalized to do such things because of the ideals of liberalism. And it's true, it's possible to rationalize such things if we rigorously experimented with the ideals. Yet most people here completely failed to grasp that point.

edit on 7-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

Far be it for me to interject in someone else's discussion, but I do believe (and I may be wrong here) that Sinnthia does understand, only she wants a discussion based on logic (vs. emotion).
As I posted earlier, you are getting to a core discussion, which the OP did not want to isolate from political and economic philosophies even after given many chances to do so.

Your premise is (and correct me if I'm wrong!) : a "Liberal" sexual education leads to greater occurrence of child sexual abuse in society". (correct?)

Good discussion point.

Now, in order to have a logical discussion we need to know: compared to what?

The examples you allude to above seem to point toward consensual sex among minors, which may be valid when discussing a proper "age of consent", but do not show any correlation to an increase in child sexual abuse with differing styles of sexual education.

I would love to see the factual bases for your view points to better be able to make up my own.

Sincerely,

the Billmeister

p.s.
Assumptions as to peoples' political and economic leanings cannot be made from the comments they leave on specific issues.

I am not arguing that it leads tp more child sex abuse, but rather a logical conclusion of sexual liberation and other similar ideals will probably lead to either lowering of the age limit or allowing children to consent to sex in the future. In other words, what the OP was trying to allude to. People don't seem to be able to grasp that how the school the OP posted about could derive such values from the ideals of sexual liberation and other similar left-associated ideals.

I am neither conservative or liberal. I disagree with both camps.

People moan and complain about the 'inhumanity' that presents itself each and every day.
Guess what?
PEOPLE [meaning homo-erectus] are the most INHUMANE creatures ever presented.

Humans kill, rape, pillage, demean, suppress, torture, and otherwise DESTROY others because they can: Period.

The life-cycle of this world upon which we live would be so much better off without the threat of humanity. We are the only species that I'm aware of that truly finds joy in the decimation of both the same species as well as others for no reason other than the demise of said.

We [humans] are our own bain. We will remove our own selves from history, and then start over again.

We have done it several times before and I'm afraid that we're doomed to do it several more times in the future, including our current age.

Originally posted by 547000
I am not arguing that it leads tp more child sex abuse, but rather a logical conclusion of sexual liberation and other similar ideals will probably lead to either lowering of the age limit or allowing children to consent to sex in the future. In other words, what the OP was trying to allude to. People don't seem to be able to grasp that how the school the OP posted about could derive such values from the ideals of sexual liberation and other similar left-associated ideals.

I am neither conservative or liberal. I disagree with both camps.

As I posted earlier, the OP was given many opportunities to clarify his position to the one you are posting here, they did not, and in fact, emphasized the role of political and economic philosophies in relation to child sexual abuse.

Had they been more concise, as you are being, the thread would not have gone sour as it did. (perhaps you should take over!)

The Odenwald School referenced in the OP is described as [quote ]thrive[ing] in the anti-authoritarian context of the late 1960s. But the same article gives examples of Catholic and Jesuit schools thriving in the same period.

In fact, I understand the point you were making very clearly, it is very different from that of the OP which dealt with child sexual abuse and NOT, as you are more reasonably pointing out, a discussion on proper age of sexual consent. Two very, very different discussions.

Once again, you are implying that a lowering of the age of consent (or even its elimination) is a

a logical conclusion of sexual liberation and other similar ideals

. I would like to see the factual basis for your stance.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it's a start at putting a factual basis on this discusion.)

Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality, childhood and adolescence, resulting in raising the ages of consent.[3]

It was startling to learn that:

The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old."[2]

Pretty interesting, but it refutes your assumption that somehow a more liberal education leads to morally questionable behavior.

thanks,

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


For the record, I understand exactly what he is saying as well. Liberal mindsets are about moving forward an agenda that as one of its many facets is about recognizing and liberating the inner adult in everyone. Seeing as how looking around, I see more conservatives listed as convicted child rapists in this thread than any other group. I see the world progressing every day as well as age of consent rise. I get it, I just do not buy it. Him repeating it is not convincing me either. I am not sure why some people on ATS always resort to insisting that anyone not in agreement does not understand. I understand. I just do not believe it. Maybe you can get some evidence, facts, or at least a reality based argument. I clearly will not.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Billmeister

 

For the record, I understand exactly what he is saying as well. Liberal mindsets are about moving forward an agenda that as one of its many facets is about recognizing and liberating the inner adult in everyone. Seeing as how looking around, I see more conservatives listed as convicted child rapists in this thread than any other group. I see the world progressing every day as well as age of consent rise. I get it, I just do not buy it. Him repeating it is not convincing me either. I am not sure why some people on ATS always resort to insisting that anyone not in agreement does not understand. I understand. I just do not believe it. Maybe you can get some evidence, facts, or at least a reality based argument. I clearly will not.

Do not worry, it was obvious that you did (and do) understand. To be frank, the original OP was quite different from this new tangent, as we have both pointed out, so it was unfair for anyone to quote arguments towards the OP to this new tangent.
I tried to bring logical arguments based on facts to the OP, but have not seen any response since then.
Now, I am trying to base this new, tangential discussion on fact as well. We will see how it goes.
Obviously, people are allowed to hold whatever opinion they wish, only they will never succeed in convincing others if these opinions are not based on factual evidence.
This I can see you understand, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Sincerely,
the Billmeister

Dear Liberal,

these are some questions concerned citizens have to you...



(based on the postings of liberals in the various threads here and elsewhere)

1. Why are Liberals more concerned with the "civil rights" of child-molestors than the rights of the victims?

2. Why do Liberals so often campaign for lowering the "age of consent"?

3.Why does normal Sex feel restrictive to you? Why do deny that such a thing as "normal" even exists?

4. Why do Liberals deny that the acts of the "sexual liberation" movement are linked to liberalism?

5. Why do so many liberals in the Internet and in the media campaign for child-molestors such as Polanski?

6. Why do most of you not distance yourself from or denounce the leftists mentioned in the OP?

reply to post by lucid eyes


Dear Lucid Eyes.

Two can play this game.

1. Why do you like raping puppies?

The Democrats have no shortage of serious problems when it comes to extramarital activity, some of it illegal, all of it wrong.
Our nation spent more tax money conducting Ken Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, than they did in the investigation of the September 11th 2001 attacks on the United States. Many Americans fail to see the logic behind this.

Regardless, they are corrupt and criminals on both sides of the fence ( Republicans and Democrats for you slower people). And they all need to be eradicated as our Declaration states.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Considering that investigation was most broadly encouraged by Newt Gingrich, a Republican who was having an extramarital affair at the time, kind of proves politics have nothing to do with it.

reply to post by Sinnthia


And what would be your excuse for Kerry's extra marital affairs, including child being born? What excuse are you gonna give him?

Point being, both parties are criminals, and ridiculous. And they should all be ashamed of their actions.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Dear Liberal,

these are some questions concerned citizens have to you...



(based on the postings of liberals in the various threads here and elsewhere)

1. Why are Liberals more concerned with the "civil rights" of child-molestors than the rights victims?

2. Why do Liberals so often campaign for lowering the "age of consent"?

3.Why does normal Sex feel restrictive to you? Why do deny that such a thing as "normal" even exists?

4. Why do Liberals deny that the acts of the "sexual liberation" movement are linked to liberalism?

5. Why do so many liberals in the Internet and in the media campaign for child-molestors such as Polanski?

6. Why do most of you not distance yourself from or denounce the leftists mentioned in the OP?

Wow, the good old "Straw Man Fallacy" argument... really?

Here is an actual definition of liberalism.

If you want to have a real discussion, some of us are trying to give you an opportunity, though I am beginning to question as to why we should.

If you are interested in such a discussion, please reply to my earlier posts, where I attempted to give you a chance at bringing this discussion back to logical and factual bases, and not emotional ones.

And if you are really serious with the above questions, post sources and concrete examples, and the discussion can go from there, but I must admit, my hopes are not high.

the Billmeister.

p.s.
Once again, please do not assume that anyone trying to have a logical, factual discussion is a radical liberal.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

And what would be your excuse for Kerry's extra marital affairs, including child being born? What excuse are you gonna give him?

I honestly do not know what you are even talking about but I have never made any excuses for anyone's affairs.

Point being, both parties are criminals, and ridiculous. And they should all be ashamed of their actions.

Yeah, that was indeed my point.

reply to post by Billmeister


Considering this one right here

Originally posted by lucid eyes
5. Why do so many liberals in the Internet and in the media campaign for child-molestors such as Polanski?

is based on 0.000016% of US liberals, I would not hold my breath for that logical, factual discussion.
Anyone that can ignore the other 99.999% and say they are represented by the former has forsaken reality.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Atleast we agree on something. Just to bad we cant get the public to make a ' move " as the the Declaration states:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

is based on 0.000016% of US liberals, I would not hold my breath for that logical, factual discussion.
Anyone that can ignore the other 99.999% and say they are represented by the former has forsaken reality.

Look at the threads on abovetopsecret.com. Its around 80% of Liberals that agree. Those Hollywood-Liberals are only the representation of the crowds.

Liberals dont really view him as a child-rapist anyway. As Whoopi Goldberg said "Its not rape-rape". Other Liberals doubt that the children did not consent. And others say that the age of 13 is OK to have Sex. Those are the voices of modern "Democrats".

Go over to the thread about Amazon revoking this pedophile book and look how fervently the liberals defend the rights of the potential child-molestor.

Disgusting.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Look at the threads on abovetopsecret.com. Its around 80% of Liberals that agree. Those Hollywood-Liberals are only the representation of the crowds.

You cannot be for real. 80% of all US liberals are here on ATS? Care to back that up? Look, if you are just going to make crap up at least go to the trouble of writing a blog first so you can link to it.

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Sinnthia

is based on 0.000016% of US liberals, I would not hold my breath for that logical, factual discussion.
Anyone that can ignore the other 99.999% and say they are represented by the former has forsaken reality.

Look at the threads on abovetopsecret.com. Its around 80% of Liberals that agree. Those Hollywood-Liberals are only the representation of the crowds.

Liberals dont really view him as a child-rapist anyway. As Whoopi Goldberg said "Its not rape-rape". Other Liberals doubt that the children did not consent. And others say that the age of 13 is OK to have Sex. Those are the voices of modern "Democrats".

Go over to the thread about Amazon revoking this pedophile book and look how fervently the liberals defend the rights of the potential child-molestor.

Disgusting.

Once again... which threads? Give us some concrete examples to discuss. Better yet, answer Sinnthia's or my previous post legitimately and something may come from this post.

I am honestly beginning to think that you are purposefully wasting all of our time.

Thank you nonetheless for your talking points,

the Billmeister