NEWS: Power to the Pedophiles!

For the most part, but under the current administration I think I COULD bomb them under the terroist umbrella...(bad joke, I know)

And I disagree that conspiracy to commit rape couldn't be prosecuted. The Misanthrope group couldn't be arrested for saying "which celebrity would you like to kill?", but an organization with a mission statement defining real purpose to commit murder and providing resources to commit murder could easily be prosecuted.

I don't think having a platform that endorses lowering the legal age-of-consent constitutes conspiracy to commit rape any more than having a platform that endorses a younger drinking age constitutes conspiracy to contribute to the delinquency of a minor.

We aren't talking about groups that endorse lowering age of consent anymore, we've established they'll be voted down. However, groups like NAMBLA actually instruct how to attract young boys in spite of the current age of consent. Conspiracy to rape.

Oops. If the 15 minute limit were not in effect I would go back and edit my post to something like "this post was written by someone with really shitty comprehension" or something. And it felt so good to be snarky. Foiled again.

I did take it as such. He was comparing Jews being taken away by the Nazis to Pedophiles not being able to have their own party. While I don't think you should restrict people in that way I still find the comparison disgusting.

But it was clearly drawing a parallel between the two. As if banning a pedophile political party was somehow similar to the Nazis treatment of Jews. And I think it was the wrong way to make a point.

Comparisons like this often occur to people. Those with even a little sense know better. Like the PITA and slavery thing. It's just dumb. And offensive.

Did you read the post to which this refers? With all due respect it's nothing like what you describe and has a direct implication of persecuting pedophiles (is preventing them from having their own recognized political party really persecution?) being similar to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Good christ. The point of the original quote is NOT THAT THE NAZIS KILLING THE JEWS IS A BAD THING. If that's what you think that quote is about then you have no true comprehension of it. Note that the original speaker, Martin Neimoeller was not even a jew! The point of the quote is to highlight the slippery slope that happens when we start allowing people to be singled out for their viewpoints, be they personal, religious, political or otherwise.

And yes, refusing to grant the right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances to one group of people while it is freely granted to every other group of people is persecution.

Here. Here's the full quote:

Read. For. Comprehension.

So, he's calling Niemöller a pedophile then?

I'm pretty sure (and Wikipedia agrees with me), that it goes "Communists, Social Democrats, Trade Unionists, Jews".

I read, I comprehend. I still think it was a bad comparison and really dislike the implications and that using it trivialises what the quote meant.

Huh. I just googled "first they came for the jews" and that one came up. Incidentally, going through the first four or five links, almost every one of them is in a different order. Wierd.

Except the quote doesn't mean what you have asserted it means.

he is sort of a vegetable though.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

As far as the party goes, yes, it should have its right to exist.
But I have heavy doubts anyone will take them seriously.

But then again, I dont know Hollands politics too well except for its well known stereo type of legalizing a certain plant that we all love

No, you really don't.

BESIDES, that quote is not really about Jews at all, and your fixation on them brings to light the fact that you still refuse to understand what it's all about.

Exactly

no one was ever comparing Jews to pedophiles.

Mmmmmm...asparagus...

Bush acts like he's been canned a bit too long.

Right. Clearly the guy who works in the field and has professional experience of dealing with the problem at hand as well as countless journal readings and professional seminars which support an opinion is just making things up because he wants it to be true, and your quasi-theory which ignores the cognitive and behavioral effects of abuse, the prevailing family dynamics in such cases as well as the nearly universal experiences of trauma children who do report abuse express regarding the investigative and adjudication processes is right. Clearly, it's the 10-year-olds' fault for not respecting their own bodies enough or having the courage to speak up against the ultimate authority figures, i.e. their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. Congratulations, you've managed to turn Mt. Everest into a grain of sand.

I intended to post a few professional articles supporting my opinion because I really do feel lax in posting something like that without concrete documentation. Right now I'm just too annoyed and insulted by your flippant dismissal and half-baked theory to be bothered. I know I should have a thicker skin regarding message-board discussions, but today I just don't.

Not to speak for Darke, but I think that you might take a different view of the comment had it been phrased differently. I know that my own version of it would have been this:

All of which is, in my case, true. Regrettably.

As I'm sure you know, a big problem that we (those of us who have experienced this kind of trauma, but not dealt with it until later in life) go through involves coming to terms with the fact that we were young when the abuse happened and that we can't hold ourselves to the same standards in hindsight as we do in the now. What I suspect is that the comment was a way of expressing a desire to be able to defend ourselves -- to erect a bulwark against the abuse so that we can prevent the victimization from the start.

No, it's not workable, given the dynamics involved in abuse and, more generally, child development -- as much as I wish it were workable, and that I could have had that knowledge and perspective when I was a child. But I think that the comment wasn't so much a dismissal of your post as an attempt to answer the question, "what can we do to give the best armor and the best chance of survival to kids who are at risk?"

(My lay opinion, at any rate. Apologies to Darke if I've misinterpreted the intent of his post.)

I never suffered any molestation at the hand of any relative... Anyone in my family who did that wouldn't be protected, they'd be buried in a shallow grave somewhere no one would find them. Military/cop family with a sense of vigilante nobility... rapists don't see daylight, and anyone who lays a hand on a woman in anger gets a fucking beating, family tradition.

The shame thing though, yeah, that was prevalent, and the assault that did happen was never brought up. It's just the day I made sure I was never again a victim. I put 40lbs of muscle on by the next year, from 15 to 16, my chestline went from 44 to 52. Started marital arts and weapons training. Spent a few years getting into stupid purposeless fights.

Got into meditation and Taoist philosophy, calmed down. None of my friends nor my wife have ever seen me get into a fight, or get truly angry... I won't do it without a good reason. The last time it happened was with some guy who tried to mug myself and a friend, and apparently what I did scared the friend so much that they weren't my friend anymore. I suppose some people believe themselves incapable of violence and want to believe their close friends are too...

Suffice it to say, I'm not blaming the 10-year old, I'm blaming the family and society for not teaching the 10-year old that they need to watch their own back first, and tell anyone who'll listen if someone is hurting them.

Hmmm. Well, I guess that my interpretation was way off base, then.

You may not be blaming the 10-year-old, but I can hardly see where this would be an effective means of raising a healthy child. Part of that is being able to trust those close to you: knowing that your parents are going to be there to protect you, care for you, etc. I agree that a child should be encouraged to speak out if someone is hurting them, but teaching a child that this is primarily their responsibility is counterproductive at best. (At worst, it's likely to reinforce a victim's perception that they deserved it, were too weak to fight against it or similar.)

As if pointed out this perspective ignores the dynamics involved in the situation. It also overlooks the psychological and ethical stages of development that the child is likely to be in at that age.

Further, this may present actual risks to the child's future. A "watch your own back first" mentality combined with the rage that can result from a sexual assault -- not to mention more severe effects of repeated abuse, such as PTSD and DID -- is a volatile recipe.

It may be useful in some circumstances for an adult to approach the situation this way. I find it dubious that it would have the same value for a child. It may prevent some assaults -- but in the cases where the victim took this attitude and still was unable to prevent the trauma I suspect that the emotional impact would be devastating.