Post a response:
|
As we are constantly reminded by those who would reassure us that ours is a free country, we live in a democratic republic in which it is the prerogative of every citizen (who isn't under court supervision, or otherwise disenfranchised) to associate with like-minded citizens, to organize politically, to petition for ballot measures and run candidates for office, and generally lobby for change that will protect their interests. There's no limitation on what those interests might be; it's whatever you want. Those who seek to oppress us claim that right without shame; they say, "We'll just have to agree to disagree" and then cast their votes to restrict the freedom of those who have sex with children. How much less, then, should we feel ashamed to cast our votes in a way that will register our dissent and disapproval of these laws. We might get outvoted, but we can at least go down fighting, and maybe even tip the balance of some elections by refusing to vote for the major party candidates. (It's always good to vote for a pro-pedo third party or independent candidate, rather than sitting out the election, because that way you make it clear where you stand, so that they know you weren't just too lazy to vote.) Pedophiles are just another interest group, with a certain number of votes and campaign donations to put behind their cause. People have sometimes told me, "If you support adult-child sex, people won't vote for you," to which I've responded, "What about pedophiles? They might." There's no law saying that in the privacy of the voting booth, you can't take a candidate's pro-pedo views into account or even cast your vote based on that since issue. If I can just get the vote of every registered voter who would like to have sex with kids, then that alone should enable me to get more votes than a typical third party candidate. I wrote in my policy statement: Some might argue, if young men are emancipated at a young age, then older men and women might have sex with them. This is not a problem. The age of consent was originally instituted as a way of preserving the marriageability of girls. It did not apply to young men, because it was recognized that young men's sexual market value is not affected by how many sex partners they have had. Even culturally, young men who have sex with attractive female teachers are often viewed as lucky rather than victimized or exploited, because every man can put himself in the shoes of the young man and realize that if he had been in that young man's place, he too would have had sex with the teacher, and enjoyed it.Got any ideas of stuff I could add or improve? [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |