Dutch Pedophile Party?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This thread provides the reasoning behind why so many people are against same-sex marriages.

It is not all about homophobia.

It often is about setting societal limits.

Let us bear in mind that society is the CHILD
of the INDIVIDUAL. I set forth the philosophy of John Locke,
in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,
wherein he points out that human existence
is older than the existence of government,
which was brought into existence only by
agreement among INDIVIDUALS.

The Creators of society, INDIVIDUALS, shud keep
their child on a short leash, lest it turn against them
( Frankenstein )
and rape them of their freedom,
which has occurred too many times in history.

It is only by the association of INDIVIDUALS
that society has any existence; if thay did not interact
among themselves, there 'd be no society.

LET 's KEEP OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

Quote:

Let one slip away and the rest are sure to, eventually, follow.

I guess we can live with that;
deal with it when it arises.

Quote:

This group of Dutch pederasts are precisely what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.

Despite all of the glib discussion about Rome and Age of Reason,
these Nederlanders are aggressive perverts in
a nation that takes pride in casting off societal limitations.

That sounds pretty GOOD,
depending upon exactly WHAT is cast off
( for instance, my rejection and casting off of non-fonetic spelling )
.

Quote:

Perhaps, just perhaps, one might concede that addressing the age of consent
as a single plank in a political platform might be legitimate,
but making it the core of one's ideology?

Perhaps the citizens of that age shud be consulted;
maybe public hearings, at which thay 'd testify if thay wished ?

Quote:

When we find ourselves accepting that a 12 year old can "consent"
to sex with a 25 year old,

Do u mean a 12 year old girl or boy ??
There is a BIG difference.
Not many boys r impregnated.

Quote:

we have become hedonistic husks.

Hedonism is very good; we shud have more of it.
Logically, our goal shud be to cram
as much happiness as we possibly CAN into our lives.
I try to; I usually succeed.

I know not what u mean about " husks " ??

Quote:

Who are these 12 year olds who are consenting to sex with adults?

Well, it was ME ( several decades ago ) altho, I 'll admit that I was 11, not 12.

Quote:

Your children? If the thought enrages and repulses you then you have no right
to even consider the issue as possibly legitimate.

Your RIGHTS are in NO WAY affected by your emotions.

Quote:

Whose 12 year old boys will be buggered by Pietr van der Perv?

1. The answer to " whose " is their OWN, meaning the boys THEMSELVES,
in that people are not the property of other people.
2. I thought that we were considering
the boys having ordinary vaginal sexual joining with older girls or women.

Quote:

This is beyond outrageous!
That something like 18% of the Dutch are not for snuffing such a notion completely out is sad testimony to Holland.

It seems to me
that what is " outrageous " is violating
the natural right of boys to join with women sexually,
as I did ( if thay be lucky enuf to be sexually accepted by a woman ).

You show no concern whatsoever
for the liberty of the boys. I cannot respect that.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

At 12, I was going down to the local drug store and trying to sneak peeks in the latest Playboy. This was before they started putting them behind the counter. But I can safely say that I NEVER gave one single thought about wanting some old guy to mess with me!

And if anyone ever touches my kids, well, the baseball bat sounds like a humane option.

I agree with u,
with enthusiasm insofar as smacking a guilty MAN
with that bat; I hope u were not referring to
attacking some sweet girl or woman with the bat.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If there really ARE logical specific reasons
that sexual encounters are harmful to young boys ( as I was )
I 'd sure like to know what thay are.

David

Yet another layer of the onion!

The doctor is in. Please continue, David--we're here to help...

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

I'm no shrink, but maybe your adolescent obsession with firearms
and childlike spelling stem from these encounters.

Assuming of course that they actually occurred...

( as if I had an INCENTIVE for deception,
because u r going to give me so much money or power
or admiration for a completely anonymous entity )

For quite a few decades,
I gave no thought to fonetic spelling,
mindlessly applying the orthografic paradime.
I corrected my secretaries' spelling errors;
( this was b4 computers with spell check ).

I revert to the convention
when greater formality requires it.
I know that u r just needling me.

I had armed myself about 3 years and several months before
the incident concerning the bus.

I remember daydreaming of misappropriating
the entire rig of a NYC police officer,
or a bank guard: gunbelt, with revolver and ammo,
when I was 3 years old. At nite, I lay in bed and thought about it;
( not seriously planning anything ).
I was unarmed until about age 8 years and a few weeks,
after I arrived in Phoenix, Arizona.

Hence, I had ALREADY had the obsession
to which u refer for long b4 the first of those encounters,
and I had been armed with a small framed .38 revolver
for more than 3 years before the first said encounter
and on the night thereof.

Accordingly,
I don 't see much validity
in your causality theory.
It has always seemed odd to me
that persons of your philosophy insist on attributing
sexuality to a desire for freedom of self defense,
like your remark the other night about
puberty and taunting in a lockeroom.
I was armed for 2 years before puberty,
not that it matters.

I have never, at any age,
opposed sexuality, but there has never been any
relation ship in my mind between the 2 issues.
David

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If there really ARE logical specific reasons
that sexual encounters are harmful to young boys ( as I was )
I 'd sure like to know what thay are.

David

Yet another layer of the onion!

The doctor is in. Please continue, David--we're here to help...

That 's all there is and there is no more, Dart,
in that I can think of nothing to add at the moment.

Have u detected any specific reasons
that sexual encounters with women are harmful to young boys ?
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This thread provides the reasoning behind why so many people are against same-sex marriages.

It is not all about homophobia.

It often is about setting societal limits.

Let us bear in mind that society is the CHILD
of the INDIVIDUAL. I set forth the philosophy of John Locke,
in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,
wherein he points out that human existence
is older than the existence of government,
which was brought into existence only by
agreement among INDIVIDUALS.

The Creators of society, INDIVIDUALS, shud keep
their child on a short leash, lest it turn against them
( Frankenstein )
and rape them of their freedom,
which has occurred too many times in history.

It is only by the association of INDIVIDUALS
that society has any existence; if thay did not interact
among themselves, there 'd be no society.

LET 's KEEP OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

Society not only is not the child of the individual it cannot be the child of the individual. Society is the child of a group of individuals who agree that their interests are better served by ceding some measure of their individual rights to the combined wisdom and group interest of a society.

In addition, the notion of pure individual rights is a philosophical construct. It exists only in terms of hermits who are, by no means, representative of realized humanity.

Once a society is recognized, the notion of individual rights is compromised. It is, indeed, foolish to assert the primacy of individual rights in any discussion of society, unless one's aim is to dismantle society.

It is perfectly reasonable to express concern over the degree to which individual rights may be exchanged for the benefits of societal benefits, but that is something far different than asserting that individual rights are somehow sacrosanct. If one believes that individual rights trump all others than one is free to withdraw from society and no longer avail oneself of its benefits, or to attempt to establish a different society that maintains the balance much closer to one's liking.

One is also free to attempt to inspire or incite other members of a given society to change the rules that may or may not have been established by a small group of individuals rather than society as a whole. In such as case, one should be prepared to accept the consequences of such anti-social behavior, because the concept of accepted and enforcible rules is inherent in any society.

Humanity has flourished on this earth because of it's social tendencies. Much of our hardwired behaviors exist to allow us to compete and thrive within the framework of societal life. Societies that accept the primacy of individual rights, accept their own demise.

Quote:

Let one slip away and the rest are sure to, eventually, follow.

I guess we can live with that;
deal with it when it arises.

Quote:

This group of Dutch pederasts are precisely what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.

Despite all of the glib discussion about Rome and Age of Reason,
these Nederlanders are aggressive perverts in
a nation that takes pride in casting off societal limitations.

That sounds pretty GOOD,
depending upon exactly WHAT is cast off
( for instance, my rejection and casting off of non-fonetic spelling )
.

Quote:

Perhaps, just perhaps, one might concede that addressing the age of consent
as a single plank in a political platform might be legitimate,
but making it the core of one's ideology?

Perhaps the citizens of that age shud be consulted;
maybe public hearings, at which thay 'd testify if thay wished ?

Quote:

When we find ourselves accepting that a 12 year old can "consent"
to sex with a 25 year old,

Do u mean a 12 year old girl or boy ??
There is a BIG difference.
Not many boys r impregnated.

Quote:

we have become hedonistic husks.

Hedonism is very good; we shud have more of it.
Logically, our goal shud be to cram
as much happiness as we possibly CAN into our lives.
I try to; I usually succeed.

I know not what u mean about " husks " ??

Quote:

Who are these 12 year olds who are consenting to sex with adults?

Well, it was ME ( several decades ago ) altho, I 'll admit that I was 11, not 12.

Quote:

Your children? If the thought enrages and repulses you then you have no right
to even consider the issue as possibly legitimate.

Your RIGHTS are in NO WAY affected by your emotions.

Quote:

Whose 12 year old boys will be buggered by Pietr van der Perv?

1. The answer to " whose " is their OWN, meaning the boys THEMSELVES,
in that people are not the property of other people.
2. I thought that we were considering
the boys having ordinary vaginal sexual joining with older girls or women.

Quote:

This is beyond outrageous!
That something like 18% of the Dutch are not for snuffing such a notion completely out is sad testimony to Holland.

It seems to me
that what is " outrageous " is violating
the natural right of boys to join with women sexually,
as I did ( if thay be lucky enuf to be sexually accepted by a woman ).

You show no concern whatsoever
for the liberty of the boys. I cannot respect that.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This thread provides the reasoning behind why so many people are against same-sex marriages.

It is not all about homophobia.

It often is about setting societal limits.

Let us bear in mind that society is the CHILD
of the INDIVIDUAL. I set forth the philosophy of John Locke,
in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,
wherein he points out that human existence
is older than the existence of government,
which was brought into existence only by
agreement among INDIVIDUALS.

The Creators of society, INDIVIDUALS, shud keep
their child on a short leash, lest it turn against them
( Frankenstein )
and rape them of their freedom,
which has occurred too many times in history.

It is only by the association of INDIVIDUALS
that society has any existence; if thay did not interact
among themselves, there 'd be no society.

LET 's KEEP OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

Societies that accept
the primacy of individual rights,
accept their own demise.

WILL U PROVE THAT, FIND ABUZZ ??

I will comment upon your other remarks
after I have rested.
David

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This thread provides the reasoning behind why so many people are against same-sex marriages.

It is not all about homophobia.

It often is about setting societal limits.

Let us bear in mind that society is the CHILD
of the INDIVIDUAL. I set forth the philosophy of John Locke,
in his Second Treatise on Civil Government,
wherein he points out that human existence
is older than the existence of government,
which was brought into existence only by
agreement among INDIVIDUALS.

The Creators of society, INDIVIDUALS, shud keep
their child on a short leash, lest it turn against them
( Frankenstein )
and rape them of their freedom,
which has occurred too many times in history.

It is only by the association of INDIVIDUALS
that society has any existence; if thay did not interact
among themselves, there 'd be no society.

LET 's KEEP OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

OK; I 'm back, Find Abuzz.
( Good Luck with Finding Abuzz, by the way )

Quote:

Society not only is not the child of the individual it cannot be the child of the individual. Society is the child of a group of individuals who agree that their interests are better served by ceding some measure of their individual rights to the combined wisdom and group interest of a society.

Yes; agreed,
ONLY to the extent that those rights
are intentionally n voluntarily compromised and ceded.
BEYOND that point,
it is only fraudulent USURPATION.

Quote:

In addition, the notion of pure individual rights is a philosophical construct. It exists only in terms of hermits who are, by no means, representative of realized humanity.

The notion of a society
is only an imaginary philosophical construct,
like lines of longitutde and latitude,
and " society 's " henchman,
government, has no authority
until it has been brought into existence
by the INDIVIDUALS who created society by
the act of associating with one another.
The power of society, thru its hireling, government,
is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the freedom of
its creator, the INDIVIDUAL.

Quote:

Once a society is recognized,

by whom ?

Quote:

the notion of individual rights is compromised.

Yes.

Quote:

It is, indeed, foolish to assert the primacy of individual rights
in any discussion of society, unless one's aim is to dismantle society.

Society is of secondary importance,
relative to the freedom and the rights
of its parents, the INDIVIDUALS.
THAY owe it to themselves
to see that their creation
will always humbly bow to its daddy.

Quote:

It is perfectly reasonable to express concern over the degree to which individual rights may be exchanged for the benefits of societal benefits, but that is something far different than asserting that individual rights
are somehow sacrosanct.

If u give in to USURPATION,
( like tolerating the defalcations of your accountant )
if u give an inch,
the thief will take a mile.
Societies in Russia,
Germany, Italy, Red China, Cambodia Iraq,
have murdered more victims than all the common robbery killings
or privately contracted murderers in history;
i.e., society is MORE DANGEROUS and we need to
keep it well controlled by the INDIVIDUAL, its daddy.

Quote:

Quote:

If one believes that individual rights trump all others
than one is free to withdraw from society

Yes.

Quote:

and no longer avail oneself of its benefits,
or to attempt to establish a different society that maintains the balance
much closer to one's liking.

Yes.

Quote:

One is also free to attempt to inspire or incite other members of a given society
to change the rules that may or may not have been established
by a small group of individuals rather than society as a whole.
In such as case, one should be prepared to accept the consequences of
such anti-social behavior,

Yes; WAR.

Quote:

because the concept of accepted and enforcible rules is inherent in any society.

USURPATIONs by society
shud not be tolerated by its creators.

Quote:

Humanity has flourished on this earth because of it's social tendencies. Much of our hardwired behaviors exist to allow us to compete and thrive
within the framework of societal life. Societies that accept the primacy of individual rights, accept their own demise.

The demise of bad societies,
as seen in Russia, Germany, Red China
are good things worthy of admiration.

It saddened me
that u did not respond to
my earlier remarks in response to u.
I hope u 'll consider addressing them.

Quote:

Let one slip away and the rest are sure to, eventually, follow.

I guess we can live with that;
deal with it when it arises.

Quote:

This group of Dutch pederasts are precisely what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.

Despite all of the glib discussion about Rome and Age of Reason,
these Nederlanders are aggressive perverts in
a nation that takes pride in casting off societal limitations.

That sounds pretty GOOD,
depending upon exactly WHAT is cast off
( for instance, my rejection and casting off of non-fonetic spelling )
.

Quote:

Perhaps, just perhaps, one might concede that addressing the age of consent
as a single plank in a political platform might be legitimate,
but making it the core of one's ideology?

Perhaps the citizens of that age shud be consulted;
maybe public hearings, at which thay 'd testify if thay wished ?

Quote:

When we find ourselves accepting that a 12 year old can "consent"
to sex with a 25 year old,

Do u mean a 12 year old girl or boy ??
There is a BIG difference.
Not many boys r impregnated.

Quote:

we have become hedonistic husks.

Hedonism is very good; we shud have more of it.
Logically, our goal shud be to cram
as much happiness as we possibly CAN into our lives.
I try to; I usually succeed.

I know not what u mean about " husks " ??

Quote:

Who are these 12 year olds who are consenting to sex with adults?

Well, it was ME ( several decades ago ) altho, I 'll admit that I was 11, not 12.

Quote:

Your children? If the thought enrages and repulses you then you have no right
to even consider the issue as possibly legitimate.

Your RIGHTS are in NO WAY affected by your emotions.

Quote:

Whose 12 year old boys will be buggered by Pietr van der Perv?

1. The answer to " whose " is their OWN, meaning the boys THEMSELVES,
in that people are not the property of other people.
2. I thought that we were considering
the boys having ordinary vaginal sexual joining with older girls or women.

Quote:

This is beyond outrageous!
That something like 18% of the Dutch are not for snuffing such a notion completely out is sad testimony to Holland.

It seems to me
that what is " outrageous " is violating
the natural right of boys to join with women sexually,
as I did ( if thay be lucky enuf to be sexually accepted by a woman ).

You show no concern whatsoever
for the liberty of the boys. I cannot respect that.

0 Replies

You are either a complete lunatic or an imaginative liar.

I know which choice I'd bet my money on.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

You are either a complete lunatic or an imaginative liar.

I know which choice I'd bet my money on.

It is sad
that u choose merely to fling ad hominem mud,
rather than to use this forum for its designed purpose
of logical reasoning.

If u cannot handle the message,
then kill the messenger and the horse he rode in on, right ?

It wud be ez to return a personal insult in kind,
but I don 't see that any good comes of that.

I 'll not lower myself to your chosen level.

U have my permission
to be the King of Mud Slinging.

David

0 Replies

Apparently,
the blacksmith ( assuming that he really IS a blacksmith )
is ashamed to admit whether he 'd use a baseball bat
to attack a girl.

David

0 Replies

Since I never claimed to have used-- let alone want to use-- a bat on a girl, I wouldn't be ADMITTING to anything. For an ostensible mensa member and erstwhile attorney, you ought to know that.

Maybe you were too caught up in the reverie of a childhood filled with sexual encounters at 8 and poker games at 11 where firearms were the pot to pay much attention. Or was sex at 11 and poker at 8, I forget.

Your lurid fables of your twisted youth are difficult to keep up with. But, true or false, they do provide a fascinating window into the personality of the adult you've become...

0 Replies

Re-posted for your convenient reference:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
At 12, I was going down to the local drug store and trying to sneak peeks in the latest Playboy. This was before they started putting them behind the counter. But I can safely say that I NEVER gave one single thought about wanting some old guy to mess with me!

And if anyone ever touches my kids, well,
the baseball bat sounds like a humane option.

I agree with u,
with enthusiasm insofar as smacking a guilty MAN
with that bat; I hope u were not referring to
attacking some sweet girl or woman with the bat.
David

0 Replies

I challenge you to show me exactly where, in said statement, I indicated I would smack a woman or girl (or anyone else) with a baseball bat.

What bar are you supposedly admitted to practice before? Because if this is any indication of your abilities, I feel for your clients!

0 Replies

I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Re-posted AGAIN
for your convenient reference
SINCE DOING IT ONCE
DID NOT PROVE TO BE ENUF:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
[size=24][color=red][b]blacksmithn[/b][/color][/size] wrote:
At 12, I was going down to the local drug store and trying to sneak peeks in the latest Playboy. This was before they started putting them behind the counter. But I can safely say that I NEVER gave one single thought about wanting some old guy to mess with me!

And if anyone ever touches my kids, well,
the baseball bat
sounds like a humane option.

I agree with u,
with enthusiasm insofar as smacking a guilty MAN
with that bat; I hope u were not referring to
attacking some sweet girl or woman with the bat.
David

The point under discussion here
was that there is a GIANT difference
between a boy getting lucky with an older girl,
as DISTINCT from
his falling victim to a MALE PERVERT
or as distinct from a girl falling victim
to the statutory rape of an older male.

It shud NOT be so hard
for u to understand.
I simply suggest that no statutory rape
laws shud apply against older FEMALES; that 's all.

I THOUGHT that I had been clear
in agreeing with u about applying the baseball bat
to which u referred ( in your response to someone else 's post
wherein he expressed his desire to smack somebody
in the face with the said bat ) against a MALE pervert,
but I am representing the position
that if some sweet girl older than a boy
makes love to him that this shud NOT become
the occasion of your attacking HER,
as u wud attack a male sicko.

If that is STILL not clear enuf
for u to understand, then re-read
your own earlier posts on this thread.

I retired from the practice of law in the 1980s.
My clients were very satisfied with the results
of my work; if u 'll excuse me for boasting
( since this forum is anonymous )
one of them was so overcome with happiness
that, after we left the courtroom, he was
literally jumping for joy; ( he got up a good 18" above
the courthouse floor, while shouting " u r a GOOD LAWYER " ).
I enjoyed trial work.

I expect u to call me a liar,
but that is harmless; it hasn 't hurt YET.

Its kinda fun,
remembering back.
David

0 Replies

Well, you're wrong. If the baseball bat sounds like a humane option, perforce there must be another, worse one. At no point did I say I would assault anyone, let alone a woman, with a baseball bat. Jeez, I shouldn't have to spell that out to you, but I can understand why you'd want to dodge and weave.

I'm sure your clients were real satisfied with your efforts. Rolling Eyes

If you were as good at lawyering as you are at spinning tales and deliberate misinterpretation, you must've been a regular Clarence Darrow.

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Well, you're wrong.

HOW ??

Quote:

If the baseball bat sounds like a humane option,

THAT was your response,
a quote from YOU, to another poster
who expressed his wish to hit somebody
in the face with that instrument.
U ADOPTED his idea
against " anyone " who touched your kids.

According to my understanding of the English language,
" anyone " includes girls and women,
who, in MY opinion shud NOT have u
attacking them with baseball bats.

I merely offered the suggestion
that u shud NOT apply it equally against FEMALES
who touch your kids;
i.e., in my opinion,
girls and women shud be IMMUNE
from your choice to use a bat to hit
anyone who touches your kids.

If u DENY that u intended to HIT " anyone "
with the said bat,
then WHAT, pray tell, did u intend
to DO with the bat ????????
Maybe u were going to ram it down the pervert 's throat ?
or up his ass ?
or TEACH HIM ( or her ) HOW TO PLAY BASEBALL ?

Quote:

perforce there must be another, worse one.
At no point did I say I would assault anyone,
let alone a woman,
with a baseball bat.

Then WHAT was the " humane " use of the bat
to which u wud apply it
upon " anyone " who touched your kids ??????

0 Replies

You either a complete moron or else so desperate to prove yourself "right" that no amount of logic or sentence parsing will prove persuasive. I'll be charitable and pretend the latter category is the applicable one.

0 Replies

THE RECORD WILL SPEAK
FOR ITSELF, Blacksmith.

Here is the first post
to which u responded
( on the first page of this thread )
adopting his thought about
the baseball bat,
with the operative language high lit below,
for ez reference:

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

A ban just makes children curious?

Uh, I don't know about anyone else, but when I was 12 I wasn't aware of children sex laws, and wasn't "curious" about much except baseball and video games.

I would love to smash that dude
in the face with a baseball bat.

Here is your response to the above post,
entered immediately and directly thereafter:

blacksmithn wrote:

At 12, I was going down to the local drug store and trying to sneak peeks in the latest Playboy. This was before they started putting them behind the counter. But I can safely say that I NEVER gave one single thought about wanting some old guy to mess with me!

And if anyone ever touches my kids, well,
the baseball bat sounds like a humane option.

To that,
I merely added my opinion
that I agreed with u,
except only that NO girls nor women
shud be hit with any baseball bats, regardless.

I misjudged u, Blacksmith.
I thought that u had enuf strength of character
and intellectual integrity,
to admit if u were in error; I doubted that u meant
to include any threat of violence against any girls
or women. U cud have simply said so,
but did not,
prefering to try to BLUF your way out,
faking that u never contemplated violence
toward ANYONE.

It did not work.
I guess that your ego is just a lot weaker
than I had thought it was.
Maybe that is Y u r a leftist.
So be it; its your life.
U define yourself.

I have nothing futher to say
on the matter, unless u,
or someone else, choose to pursue it.

David

0 Replies

No, no need to pursue it further. The fact that you're either a dissembler pretending an inability to understand English or a prevaricator speaks for itself. 'Nuff said.

0 Replies

Dutch Pedophile Party?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know