I truly fail to see your point of view on just about any issue. I do not know if it is because of the language barrier or what but all of this seems extremely absurd to me.<br><br>On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Max Moritz Sievers <<a href="mailto:m.sievers@piratenpartei-hessen.de">m.sievers@piratenpartei-hessen.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> Gagis wrote:<br>>> Also, campaigning based on conspiracy theories is a political suicide.<br>><br>> Well, for president Bush it worked and for Obama it will work, too.<br><br>I do think that if they went for a conspiracy theory, such as moon landings never occurring, aliens spying on us or such, they would have been laughed out of the game.<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">Gagis wrote:<br>
> Finnish Party will almost certainly not include either in uniform Party<br>
> Program.<br>
><br>
> Those two are also up to individual members. Also, there is no issue<br>
> about sexuality of babies.<br>
<br>
</div>Why?</blockquote><div> </div>Most of all: Because there isn't. Look at any major media reports and you won't see any debates about the sexuality of babies. It's not an issue.<div><br>Infant means baby. Humans develop physical sexual ability at the age range of 11-18 years of age. Babies are around 1 years old. I see no issue there.<br>
Sexuality trough genes and psychology of course exists since we are born as males and females... but what is the issue and where? Children are not forced to hide their gender.<br><br>There is nothing preventing children/the young from having sex with each other in Finland. Legal age of consent on the other hand, meaning age when adults can have sex with the minor, is debatable in the 12-20 range, but I am quite happy with it being at 16, since it works well. If you want to legalize pedophilia, this is not the right political movement for you.<br>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> O_o Legal age of consent of minors perhaps, which is not seriously<br>
> questioned anywhere in Finland.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not thinking in legal terms but in social terms.</blockquote><div><br>Our family and age laws mirror our social attitudes around here. There is nothing preventing teens from shagging each other painfully, getting an unwanted child and ruining their lives forever at the moment, so there is no restriction of freedom that would need to be removed.<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Drugs divide the party when it comes to opinion but it will never<br>
> divide the party when it comes to co-operation.<br>
<br>
</div>You should know that intelligence services profit from the illegal trade. Our<br>
demand for privacy will only then fulfilled if all intelligence services are<br>
destroyed. Just with this reasoning we have to stop prohibition. </blockquote><div><br>Umm what... 0_o<br><br>I do like how our army, which I and most of the adult members of PPFI serve in as reserves, is able to monitor invaders in war. Destroying intelligence services destroys the military, the police and so on. I do not want that. Goverment and military agencies are not private businesses who market their services to you and rely on there being something to work against.<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">Rick Falkvinge wrote:<br>
> > Two important topics which are nearer to the real thing are sexuality of<br>
> > infants and illegal drugs. We have to take a well-defined position on<br>
> > these if we want to be serious.<br>
><br>
> Ok, this is where you derail totally.<br>
><br>
> Keep your eyes fixed on the target. We can do this, lift the copyright<br>
> oppression and safeguard civil liberties, because (and only because) it<br>
> has popular support.<br>
<br>
</div>If you want to dictate which drugs other people are allowed to use, you don't<br>
value freedom. If you oppress the sexuality of your childs, you don't value<br>
freedom. Why do you think the people allow oppression through copyright and<br>
constraints of civil liberties?</blockquote><div><br>I like to restrict people's ability to consume various poisons. Many Pirates do not. It is a non-core issue and should not be taken a common stance on and it is a dangerous issue that will certainly shift us from the party that brings the new idea to everyone to a party than brings the new issue to half of the interested people.<br>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br>
| We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of<br>
| government and science should dictate where human curiousity can<br>
| legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially<br>
| preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what<br>
| we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In<br>
| fact, not /a/ religious sensibility, /the/ religious sensibility.<br>
-- Terence McKenna: Non-Ordinary States Through Vision Plants<br><div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>...<br> </div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="Ih2E3d">
> What you suggest will kill any such initiative immediately. It is not a<br>
> coincidence that the Lobby constantly and vigorously tries to associate<br>
> file sharing with child porn.<br>
<br>
</div>Child porn is a side issue. When I call for to stop oppressing the sexuality<br>
infants, I don't encourage child porn. There is a relation between child porn<br>
and the oppression of the sexuality of infants: it's a vicious circle. This<br>
is true for every kind of child abuse. I want to break the cycle. Why<br>
shouln't this be a goal of our movement?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>What do your really mean with all this? Legalizing pedophilia? Hell no.<br><br>Changing attitude of parents who spank their children for being interested in the opposite sex? Not the work of a politician.<br>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><br>
It's a hot subject and that is why it could profitable for us. It is not<br>
reasonable for me to be member of a party which will never be in a<br>
parliament. I reckon this will be the case with those core-topic focused<br>
Pirate Parties. If they would even so suceed, life would hbe a bit easier or<br>
at least we would have a bit more freedom. But then the real problems<br>
wouldn't be touched -- and not solved.</blockquote><div><br>Pirate movement is strong BECAUSE people come to our conclusions from all sides of political ideologies. Becoming the next haven for fringe movements is what would end us.<br>
<br>Getting everyones interest because we are whom we are works. Wooing a spesific group does not.<br><br>We work for freedom, not your personal angendas or ideas of it. There is a difference beetween a shared goal and someone's private goals, and that is why we should not let anyone include theirs in our program. Not me, nor you.<br>
</div></div>