Liberal Elite perform mass child-rape

reply to post by Billmeister


I can only argue it logically, not empirically or statistically. It will be unprecedented just like how homosexual rights was unprecedented in most society. What people thought would never happen did, and now we call people who don't agree with it to be bigots or close-minded. If it's unprecedented but logical, what statistics can you use? There aren't any statistics you can view for something unprecedented. Moreover statistics often show relationships that aren't true. If something can be argued for logically it shows a relationship better than statistics can. I shall show that logically from the ideal of sexual liberalism that it is possible for people to rationalize a) lowering the age limit; b) giving children control of their bodies and sexuality. This shall establish that they aren't just sickos in the school, but that they followed logically the ideals of sexual liberalism to rationalize what they were doing.

Let us assume the goals of sexual liberalism is to remove all traditional barriers to sexuality that cannot be argued for rationally. Then we have a problem. The 18 year old age limit is quite arbitrary, 21 years old even more so. We constantly teach children that sex is okay, healthy, blahblahbblah, and yet we deny them the ability to consent to anyone 18 and older. We give them the ability to consent with anyone younger, but cross that point, and it's straight to jail. Does it really matter whether the 14 year old has the hots for a 17 year old or an 18 year old? Either way the 14 year old CHOSE to have sex with both, but we only accept the former choice, saying that the latter choice is not a choice but rape. We have a double standard here: we accept that minors often consciously choose to have sex, for if they didn't one of the main points of why sex education is necessary is down the water, but we don't accept their choice when it's with someone who happens to pass the arbitrary age limit. If the argument is that they aren't mentally equipped to make such a choice we have two problems: they seem mentally equipped enough to make a choice for anyone who is also a minor, we have no complains there; also, mentally handicapped people are allowed to make that choice too, who can sometimes be less mentally equipped than a teenager. Also most minors can naturally have children before 18, nature allows it, but we unnaturally treat it as an impossibility until 18. As we can see the 18 year old limit is quite arbitrary, and perhaps a more rational solution is to move it to a lower age.

But even then we would have rational problems. What about children lower than the age limit who desire and choose sex? We have pretty much the same problem as we had with keeping it restricted to 18 years old. Then we also have this problem: children do often desire sex due to how sexualized society is. Is it really rape if they desire it, or merely because the parent says they can't meet their desires? We, as a society, do not support the idea of parents deciding how they raise their kids. If they get spanked, it's child abuse whether they were naughty or not. Parents are forced to educate children in the curriculum the state dictates until they are 18. We even have atheists supporting the idea that it's child abuse to expose children to religious things. If we say that children have rights that supersede the rights parents want to give a child is giving control of their own body and sexuality really that much of a stretch in thinking? It certainly sounds good on the tip of your tongue: “I'm human, and what I do with my own body is decided only me, because of my human rights.” On the other hand, so what if kids desire sex? It will just be bad for them if they make mistakes. But then liberalism/libertarianism is about being free, to be able to make mistakes but not have your rights trampled on by people who think they know better. The ideals associated with the left would logically have to include sexual autonomy as a human right that no one can take away. So long as it's mutually consensual, no ones autonomy is being violated.

As you can see that it is indeed possible for the school to rationalize child/adult relations as a consequences of teaching progressive sexual liberalization. What's more humanist than giving every human control of their own sexuality? What's more equalizing, or communist, than giving everyone equal rights to their own sexual autonomy regardless of age, gender, or race? When they say it was progressive in idea they weren't just making it up.

i think this applies to the situation at hand here .

U.N. Thinks teaching 5 year olds about masturbation is appropriate:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

And the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, pretty much removes parental rights in deeming what is best for a child:
www.parentalrights.org...

Obama thinks sex-ed for kindergartners is the right thing to do:
blogs.abcnews.com...

While clearly the exploitation and violation of children is not party specific. I do believe there is an agenda here to destroy the structures of family and warp the minds of children. And the only way to weasel it in is through malleable minded liberals under the guise of sexual liberation, tolerance etc., etc. It's a swing from one extreme of repression to another extreme. Both damaging. Yet their not going to make it obvious, just slow indoctrination into a warped perverse society.

Sexual liberation or education has no place being taught to young children let alone in the schooling system whatsoever. But it's justified because family structures are so f***** up that parents are inept in properly teaching these things to to their children, not to mention the fact that the family relationships leave children devoid of self-esteem, value, morals and clarity to make the right decisions when physiological sexual maturity arrives.

Yet the degradation of moral values in this arena can't be slipped through with conservatives, but liberals who are on the liberation train of thought will be open enough to the bait to let the garbage slide through. Just like some conservatives and war.

The perverts in the OP were just a bunch sick twisted f**** using Liberalism as their cover.

Originally posted by kalamatas
U.N. Thinks teaching 5 year olds about masturbation is appropriate:
www.dailymail.co.uk...

And the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, pretty much removes parental rights in deeming what is best for a child:
www.parentalrights.org...

Obama thinks sex-ed for kindergartners is the right thing to do:
blogs.abcnews.com...

Even your own two year old source does not back up the claim in it's title.

"'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,'" Obama told the Daily Herald. "'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards

Sensationalist lies from the 2008 campaign that here in 2011 have proven to not be true as evidence of something that is going to happen? That is a bit like using the 1981 prediction that the world will end in 1985 to prove that the world will indeed be ending soon. Didn't happen. Turned out to not be true. Even the sensationalist articles cannot fully support the lie.

This thread does a wonderful job to highlight how far some people will got to pit political ideals against each other. Child rape is wrong no matter who does and there is no shortage of people from any political persuasion doing it. For every 2 year old rumor about teaching 5 years olds how to have sex we can simply look at things like where Rush Limbaugh was vacationing when he got busted with all that illegal Viagara. You know, a Republican protected child sex tourism island in the Dominican Republic. Should we really start pitting rumors against each other to see which side has the most child molestors in it? I am game.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Billmeister

 

I can only argue it logically, not empirically or statistically.

With nothing empirical to apply any logic to, that statement is logically null. The rest of us are being logical as well but we are applying that to the real world whereas you are applying it to things you just made up. Educate yourself on the once very common of pederasty (pretty authoritarian practice btw: looking at Repubs) and explain to me how a history of sex with children and nonexistand ages of consent leading up to the point where we all agree no 16 year old could ever consent to sex in almost every state in the Union logicaly leads to the conclusion that we will reach a bump in the curve and begin to fall backwards. Without anyting empirical, you are just fantasizing.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Point being there's perverts everywhere, who probably in reality don't subscribe the the "party" ideals of the party their in. It's all for show. They're all corrupt bastards with a corrupt agenda using ideals of people to pit people against each other and slide their slimy projects through. I don't care how old that "news" was. Anyone suggesting that five year old need that kind of information has got it wrong. Five year olds don't even usually ask where babies come from, so it's not age appropriate. And if a parent can't teach their child some basic biological anatomy, then we need to be teaching the parents not the toddlers.

Originally posted by kalamatas
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Point being there's perverts everywhere, who probably in reality don't subscribe the the "party" ideals of the party their in.

That has been my point all along. Still is.

It's all for show. They're all corrupt bastards with a corrupt agenda using ideals of people to pit people against each other and slide their slimy projects through. I don't care how old that "news" was. Anyone suggesting that five year old need that kind of information has got it wrong. Five year olds don't even usually ask where babies come from, so it's not age appropriate. And if a parent can't teach their child some basic biological anatomy, then we need to be teaching the parents not the toddlers.

So you do not care that your news is a 2 year old rumor, not at all reflected by the facts 3 years later?

I am not sure I understand that mentality. Looking for problems where there are none? Why? Getting upset over something that turned out to not be at all true? What is the point? The only reason I can see for your post is to, as the OP and others have, attempt to make a political dig when you should be focusing on child rape. If that is the game you want to play, you should use things that were not debunked over 2 years ago.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Can you point us to any place where we can find liberals claiming that pedophillia is a conservative construct employed and enjoyed by conservatives?

No you cant because "sexual liberation" and "against traditional sexuality" is a liberal issue. And extreme liberalism is adult-child sex.

Originally posted by Mastermook

I think the title is a generalization, and of shock value to get the readers attentio

The Title SOUNDS LIKE an attention-grabber but its actually 100% factual. If it werent factual liberals wouldnt be attacking this thread with their childish temper-tantrums.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Nice post. I mentioned the Franklin coverup myself earlier and the OP explained that that is a different kind of child rape. That child rape is just kind of bad. That is not the same as liberal child rape, which is much much worse. Hopefully you get a better response.

Please show the readers EXACTLY where I said that "child rape is just kind of bad" and that "liberal child rape is much worse".

Originally posted by lucid eyes
No you cant because "sexual liberation" and "against traditional sexuality" is a liberal issue. And extreme liberalism is adult-child sex.

No. You can't because your entire premise is on shaky ground AT BEST. I know I cannot, that is why I asked you to. Play your word games if you think it helps.

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Please show the readers EXACTLY where I said that "child rape is just kind of bad" and that "liberal child rape is much worse".

It is the entire theme of this thread. Here is an example.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
The lack of intelligence in the commenting around here is appalling.

This particular form of pedophilia is motivated by leftist ideologies of sexual liberation. Catholics (for example) are not motivated by political thoughts when they molest children.

Big difference. Almost every poster around here tries to obscure what happens when liberalism goes overboard bx deflecting to conservatives.

According to you when a child is raped by a liberal and a child is raped by a Catholic, there is a "big difference." Sure there is. I eagerly await the reports of child rape that have been thrown out of court because it was a different kind of child rape, not that dirty liberal kind.

reply to post by Sinnthia


I suggest you throw out all of math and philosophy then, seeing as have they aren't really empirical or proved on data. Throw out the idea of logic too while you're at it, useless thing it is.

Do you ever even wonder why the social sciences aren't effective or come to contradictory conclusions? That's because data is easy to misread or fudge data and you can easily correlate things that have no real relationship or tends that are fallacious .

reply to post by 547000


Math works just fine but your post is just one more reason to look at your repetitive rants and dismiss as just such. Why would you sit here trying to make a phillisophical point and then argue why those kinds of points are invalid? I know. Reality and real numbers mean nothing. What you claim is going to happen in the future with no argument, logic, or facts means something. Right?

I think we have already had this dance. I am not going to tell you to go get some facts again. You came unpreprated. You got an extra day. Not my fault you cannot find your books. Move along now.

I argue that it's a liberal value to give every human sexual autonomy. Also the disregard of traditional values will logically conclude in that agenda. You just refuse to see that the school indeed did rationalize their actions due to the ideology of sexual liberalism and I did show it is indeed a possibility. Instead you choose to what the OP was trying (unsuccessfully) to allude to and instead stick your head in the sand and deny deny deny. You want data? Read history, pay attention to the news, and mostly think about the full implications of some of the causes and ideals people support just because they sound good at first.

reply to post by 547000


You have an opinion. That is so very nice for you but I have read it already about 8 times. I got it. Thank you. I GOT IT. K? I thought you might try actually making a case for it if I asked you too about 5 times but I guess not. I am not sure why you think just saying your opinion over and over again is convincing to anyone but I hope you can at least see how well it is working for you so far. Please do not just repeat this stuff anymore. You have made your opinion more than clear. I am only interested in some logical case for that opinion and you seem reluctant to offer any. Not sure why you want to tell me something over and over again if you are not willing to help me see why I should consider it. You lock your kids up and hide from the liberals. I will just watch out for child rapists in general. No need for me to join your unfounded paranoia about a pedophile utopian future.

reply to post by Sinnthia


LOL, the article posted by the OP is one such case. The pedophile party in Netherlands is another case. With sexual liberation taken to its logical conclusion will result in support of sexual autonomy for all humans, including children. Just pay attention to the news in the future and you will see the obvious.

reply to post by 547000


Thank you for your well written and intelligent response.

I agree that one would have to go back to pre-enlightenment times, therefore the dark ages to analyze whether the absence of liberalism had an influence on sexual behavior between children and adults. It appears that the family decided age of consent and it was linked to puberty (please refer to my earlier post for the source).
It was, therefore, common place in pre-liberal times for an adult (most often a male) to have children with a 12 year old.
Childhood psychology teaches us that sexual desire only exists after puberty. (before this there is curiosity, but no desire) The laws (that are in place in most countries) target deviant adults and I argue that these deviants exist whatever the educational philosophy in place.

Once again, thank you for your response, the OP could learn a thing or two from you.

the Billmeister

reply to post by 547000


LOL the list I posted was MANY CASES of CONSERVATIVES raping children. You do see the problem with your "evidence" thus far, correct?

No, they do it, but they don't try to justify their actions with an appeal to liberties or throwing of the chains of oppression . Are you intentionally missing the point? If you are arguing some conservatives rape kids you'd be right. But I'm saying these people are trying to justify their actions as liberating in some form..