Nambla

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tom201
Define a child, or give an age limit, and you may get some response

14 and below will do as a definition in this case as that was the lowest age of consent I saw in the US. Now stop avoiding the question.

[Tom201]

14 and below will do as a definition in this case as that was the lowest age of consent I saw in the US. Now stop avoiding the question.

As I said, in the other thread I go with the Dutch law
I would argue that any teenager, capable of being pregnant/having an orgasm, is also mental mature enough to have sex. This age can be set for a law on 12. I agree that on the starting age they need some protection (-> no more than 4 years age diffrence, aproval of the parents). From 14 they can do whatever they want with whoever they like, and its noone elses business.

[Adalbertus]

There's no such thing as a "thought crime." I can think how lovely it would be to lob a few nukes in the general direction of France and kill off mass millions of innocent people. I can think that all day long and it doesn't make it illegal.

This is something I personally would disagree. But what is more important: As long as you think, you do not influence your environment. And as long as you only think, you are free to whatever you are up to. (For me, it's the foremost sign of a totalitarian system that the government wants to influence your thinking).
Thinking is fundamentally different of speaking (post this in the thread "most stupid things you've ever heard"). First you can think a lot of which you don't talk about, except you are mentally incontinent. Second, speaking (or creating your website) you start to influence your environment, as much as by doing something. As I've said before, you can drive someone into suicide only by speaking. This is not a crime? By speaking only you can lower the threshold to commit a crime substantially. 10000 flies cannot go wrong, excrements are wonderful food - 10000 Nambla'ers cannot go wrong, pedophilia is not a crime.

I think speech has to undergo some sort of suitable social control, as much as actions do. Too much tolerance against someone who wants to install intolerance kills itself. An unlimited freedom is impossible (or at least not stable). We have to limit freedom in order to be able to defend the freedom we have. Of speech as much as of actions.

German constitution doesn't make it easy to forbid speech (as e.g. forbidding a political party). There were two cases in the last 50 years (one Neonazi and one Stalinist party), and one other is in preparation (Neonazi).

On the other hand, sometimes there are situations where even and especially a responsible citizen has to do - or say - something illegal.

I support the artist's right to post anything on the site that does not violate current laws or other agreements I have with some of my service providers, even if what I wind up supporting makes me squemish.

There you have them - the restrictions.
And I think there is still a difference between stupid, I-don't-agree, and criminal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tom201

14 and below will do as a definition in this case as that was the lowest age of consent I saw in the US. Now stop avoiding the question.

As I said, in the other thread I go with the Dutch law
I would argue that any teenager, capable of being pregnant/having an orgasm, is also mental mature enough to have sex. This age can be set for a law on 12. I agree that on the starting age they need some protection (-> no more than 4 years age diffrence, aproval of the parents). From 14 they can do whatever they want with whoever they like, and its noone elses business.

I disagree --- I do not care how fast or when a person physically matures, because phsyical maturation does not mean emotional or psychological maturation.

I say that 18 year olds on up should be allowed to have sex with an adult of any age that they wish to be with.

[Dr Strangelove]

At one time NAMBLA did alot more than just express their point of view. They have been known to arrange junkets to Asian countries like the Phillipines and Thailand which included contacts with people in those countries who would arrange for the men to be set up with young boys who would do whatever the men wished.

NAMBLA also at one time actually had contacts with social agencies in New Jersey which ( unknowingly I persume ) would arrange for the men to meet boys in a sort of "Big Brothers" sort of arrasngement.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tom201
I would argue that any teenager, capable of being pregnant/having an orgasm, is also mental mature enough to have sex.

You're one of those Ephebophiles aren't you? I'd like to know how you are able to equate physical maturity with mental maturity in this case.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yeah, just because you can argue it doesn't mean you can back up your arguement with substance.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


You're one of those Ephebophiles aren't you? I'd like to know how you are able to equate physical maturity with mental maturity in this case.

Exactly what I stated, DinoDoc. I am waiting for the reply too.

[Adalbertus]

Tom201
(-> no more than 4 years age diffrence, aproval of the parents)

Approval of the parents? I'd guess there is some lack of realism. It is important that parents give also advice to their children in sexual things. But I wouldn't ask anybody "I want to sleep with ..." except of replaying "..." with "you". Requiring to do so is a violation of the private sphere which also x year old children have.

[Sarxis]

Is Michael Jackson a member of NAMBLA?

[Tom201]

Hmm, did you guys read the other thread (Interfering in Other Peoples' Sex Lives), I explained a lot of stuff already there. So some answers are quotes from that thread.

Originally posted by MrFun
I say that 18 year olds on up should be allowed to have sex with an adult of any age that they wish to be with.

Does this mean no sex in general bevor 18 or only no sex younger ones with older ones?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're one of those Ephebophiles aren't you?

Didnt know that word bevor. A quik search brings up the definition: sexual involvement with adolescents (as an adult I guess). If this definition is correct, no.
Youngest girl I had sex with was 16 with me as the younger part (13), other relationships didnt differ more than 2 years.

I'd like to know how you are able to equate physical maturity with mental maturity in this case.

The question is not why, rather than why not.
When you look at other laws, concerning responsibility limits, its very reasonable. A child of 10 for example cant be charged for shoplifting. While there is a law, that from the age of 14 you are able to sign minor (privat) business contracts. Additionally you get in trouble for criminal activity.
I think this limits also should apply for other issues. Why isnt a teenager able to make decissions on sex, when he can on business stuff?

I had my own 1st sexual experience nearly the age stated as a limit in the law (12 vs 13). Dispite that I dont get any nightmares or whatever, and it was a rather good experience

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Approval of the parents? I'd guess there is some lack of realism. It is important that parents give also advice to their children in sexual things. But I wouldn't ask anybody "I want to sleep with ..." except of replaying "..." with "you". Requiring to do so is a violation of the private sphere which also x year old children have.

Ok, so you disagree with the aproval of parents part of the law, for sex between 12 and 14?

[Tom201]

Adalbertus
By speaking only you can lower the threshold to commit a crime substantially

So we should forbid gangster rap or no?

Adalbertus
German constitution doesn't make it easy to forbid speech (as e.g. forbidding a political party). There were two cases in the last 50 years (one Neonazi and one Stalinist party), and one other is in preparation (Neonazi).

I agree it is not easy to forbid a party in germany.
But it is very easy and seems to be very random to forbid, books, printings, tapes, etc. (-> Indizierungen, Beschlagnahmungen). There is a high level on censorship in germany.

[Adalbertus]

Ok, so you disagree with the aproval of parents part of the law, for sex between 12 and 14?

I don't disagree, it's simply I doubt it works. (or it's not to protect children but to sue their parents in case something happens. In this case I'm not sure if I better disagreed. In this age of the kids it's a really hard thing to assign responsibilities in a fair way if something goes wrong).

So we should forbid gangster rap or no?

Never was really interested in. this kind of music. I try to get away from rap before there is a way to see if there is some sort of text. But generally, it depends. You'll have to look into every single case in doubt, and being physicist, I've not had the education to decide this in a way that society really improves. To see if one needs to set a limit it is not helpful to look at cases in doubt but you need to look at the extremes. A total control of speech is bad, we can all agree about that. A total freedom of speech excuses everything Hitler did do 1933-1945. During these years, the only person he personally killed was he himself. I think we can all agree, that this is bad, too. So we need a limit to the freedom of speech. The discussion should be where to set the limits and not if. Disagreeing about the position of this limit should be free

But it is very easy and seems to be very random to forbid, books, printings, tapes, etc. (-> Indizierungen, Beschlagnahmungen). There is a high level on censorship in germany.

What is relatively easy is "Indizierung". This doesn't mean that a book, ... is forbidden but that you mustn't display it in a shop and you mustn't advertise it. You are free to keep it under the shelf and sell it on demand. It's not forbidden to own this stuff.

[Tom201]

A total freedom of speech excuses everything Hitler did do 1933-1945. During these years, the only person he personally killed was he himself.

There is a big diffrence between free speech and giving orders
I agree that some special kinds of the second shouldnt be allowed....

What is relatively easy is "Indizierung". This doesn't mean that a book, ... is forbidden but that you mustn't display it in a shop and you mustn't advertise it. You are free to keep it under the shelf and sell it on demand. It's not forbidden to own this stuff.

I would call Indizierung a quite harsh form of censorship.
You are not allowed to write about the medium in magazines, or in news or whatever.
Practically there is no legal way to inform costumers this product even exists. They know anyways because they dont obey this law.
Take in account that "Indizierungen" are very whitespread, practically every FPS is, a lot of popular movies are (Starship Troopers, Evil Dead, Friday 13th, etc.). 70% of FSK18 Movies are cut as a requirment for not being "indiziert".

[problem_child]

The Black Panthers differ from the KKK in one inportant regard, that is that they have never actually LYNCHED anybody, nor have they set light to any crosses (or cresants) on anybodies lawn. The KKK are responcible for the murder of hundreds of people and the burning of hundreds of churches (many while full).


Beyond that- the Panthers are just a bunch of racists, reactionary racism or not. Some members of the KKK are descendants of Irish Catholics! an insight into their absence of real self identity in my opinion, the KKK only like white prodestants.