French Line Offers Lingerie for Girls As Young As Four

[StorminNorman]

Sorry, but my morality supercedes my dedication to free-market economics.

Nuclear warheads aren't sold legally either. If France started selling those to whoever wanted to buy them, should we allow it also? Because they have a Democratic right?

These days it seems it's so hip to prove how pro-free market you are, that people lose touch with simple morality... what's right and what's wrong. If some scumbags are denied the chance to buy toddler lingerie for whoever's child they're currently abusing, somehow I think Democracy will survive.

This is so clearly wrong, I don't see how anyone could defend it, vague constitutional argument or not.

But your morality is reflected in free-market economics. YOUR MORALITY means that you will never buy the product, which means that the prospective consumer base for this product is instantly reduced by one person. The more people, like myself, who share your view reduce the market as well.

I actually have no problem with the idea of private nuclear arms sales (I see no reason why it makes more sense to trust the Pakistani government with a nuke more than any random guy - and the reality is that black markets for such weapons will exist with or without it being legal).

Again, right and wrong is done at the consumer level - it is up to individuals to make that decision. But how can you dictate what is "moral" and "not moral" to me? Unless I am undermining the rights of another, you have no justification for such action.

 

[StorminNorman]

The fact that this lingerie is being sold now isn't a story. It is whether this lingerie is successful, in the long term, that we should look at.

If there is enough demand to justify this product in the market place, then that is a sad commentary on society today. But not the free market. The free market simply shows the wishes of society.

 

[chamber-music]

Good.

We can start exporting all our pedophiles to France if they keep it up. They obviously want them.

They were happy to take Roman Polanski....

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

just curious to the people saying its up to the parents have you actually seen the photos that were taken.

 

[SuperFerret]

I swear Norman, you're nothing more than walking, talking politics.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I'm actually touched that Super Ferret and I agree for once. This is a golden day.

Norman, there's nothing I can say to you, except your lack of empathy for others is pretty stunning. You care more about defending free market principles than anything else in the world, including the protection of minors. Okay, we get it.

 

[WildcatNC]

just curious to the people saying its up to the parents have you actually seen the photos that were taken.

Yea, I don't want to see them nor do I need to in order to know its wrong. The very concept is wrong.

 

[Prison Mike]

Hey, at least you can't say Norman is inconsistent.

 

[StorminNorman]

I swear Norman, you're nothing more than walking, talking politics.

Well this is a political conversation. The (natural) reaction to this headline was outrage. Outrage leads to a demand for action. That action is leans along the lines of "ban it". The only way a product can be banned is through government - politics.

Check me out in the NFL thread. I only mention Ron Paul like once every two weeks.

I'm actually touched that Super Ferret and I agree for once. This is a golden day.

Norman, there's nothing I can say to you, except your lack of empathy for others is pretty stunning. You care more about defending free market principles than anything else in the world, including the protection of minors. Okay, we get it.

I am tremendously empathic, so much so that I don't believe that my values should be forced upon others. I don't pretend to suggest that I, as a 22-year old childless male, should be telling other people how to raise their kids.

I as am personally offended by this product as anyone else. I want to see it fail in the market. But it is up to society - to individual consumers - to make it fail. If this product sales, it is not because the product is made (tons of products are made and not sold), it is because there is an actual market for it.

Now I have concerns about the consequences of any parent who would dress their daughter up like a prostitot. I believe adamantly in morality and contend that there are organic consequences to living an immoral life (this is one of the problems I have with certain Christians that emphasize that the benefit to living a Christian life is heaven, rather than the benefits that come about while living.)

But you are right, I will defend freedom - including economic freedom - over anything else in the world. Give me liberty or give me death! All that jazz.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Once more, not your decision to make.

Interestingly enough, people on here are getting all riled up over a product that does not affect them personally. Yet, where is all this passion when it comes to the Mormon religion? Or the slaughter of baby seals and cows? Or Drone attacks in Third-World countries? Or Private Manning possibly receiving a Treason charge?

I'm willing to bet that several members currently posting in this thread support at least one out of four.

 

[WildcatNC]

Well this is a political conversation. The (natural) reaction to this headline was outrage. Outrage leads to a demand for action. That action is leans along the lines of "ban it" or something along those lines. The only way a product can be banned is through government - politics.



I am tremendously empathic, so much so that I don't believe that my values should be forced upon others. I don't pretend to suggest that I, as a 22-year old childless male, should be telling other people how to raise their kids.

Now I have concerns about the consequences of any parent who would dress their daughter up like a prostitot. I believe adamantly in morality and contend that there are organic consequences to living an immoral life (this is one of the problems I have with certain Christians that emphasize that the benefit to living a Christian life is heaven, rather than the benefits that come about while living.)

But you are right, I will defend freedom - including economic freedom - over anything else in the world. Give me liberty or give me death! All that jazz.

Where do you draw the line though ??

Should I be able to sell my kids for 10 grand a piece? There is certainly a market for it and they are under my care to do with as I see fit.

I could use some slaves also. Say what you want, it gets **** done.

I'm not being a smart***, just illustrating that absolutism in ideology is not the answer to all the worlds woes IMO.

 

[StorminNorman]

Would a child not be better off away from a parent who would sell them for easy cash? Now whoever bought the child would be just as responsible for the child as the parents was (for example, a parent can't eat a child, can't abuse a child, can't control the labor of a child after they become an adult, etc.) but yes, I can see no reason to ban the selling of children. (This happens all the time anyway with various adoption practices.)

But everyone has a right to their own bodies - so involuntary slavery wouldn't be acceptable. You should be able to purchase the services of someone else voluntarily if someone so offered them.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hey, at least you can't say Norman is inconsistent.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I adore the French for their contributions (such as the Ménage à trois and their women) to society but this is lunacy! French parents better hide their kids.

Like gunpowder and pasta, I bet that one was actually invented in China too.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Like gunpowder and pasta, I bet that one was actually invented in China too.

I was being sarcastic.

If you want to get technical about it, sexual practices of that nature have been documented as early as the rise of man.

 

[WildcatNC]

Would a child not be better off away from a parent who would sell them for easy cash? Now whoever bought the child would be just as responsible for the child as the parents was (for example, a parent can't eat a child, can't abuse a child, can't control the labor of a child after they become an adult, etc.) but yes, I can see no reason to ban the selling of children. (This happens all the time anyway with various adoption practices.)

But everyone has a right to their own bodies - so involuntary slavery wouldn't be acceptable. You should be able to purchase the services of someone else voluntarily if someone so offered them.

I was referring to child slave labor, didn't make it clear in my post.

Who are we to decide what abuse is though? Should that not be the parents decision as well? If the market is selling them to overseas labor camps then its fair game?

 

[WildcatNC]

I was being sarcastic.

If you want to get technical about it, sexual practices of that nature have been documented as early as the rise of man.

 

[Troy_Parker]

I can't believe some people are simplifying this matter to... "Well, it's up to the parents."

l0lwut?

The problem is that this company is extremely ******ed. It just doesn't make sense, OBVIOUSLY designing something as stupid as lingerie for four year olds is going to be the subject of controversy. You'd think for a clothing company, they'd know that.

Designing lingerie for four year old girls makes as much sense as making condoms for four year old boys, no sense at all.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Ha!

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I can't believe some people are simplifying this matter to... "Well, it's up to the parents."

l0lwut?

The problem is that this company is extremely ******ed. It just doesn't make sense, OBVIOUSLY designing something as stupid as lingerie for four year olds is going to be the subject of controversy. You'd think for a clothing company, they'd know that.

Designing lingerie for four year old girls makes as much sense as making condoms for four year old boys, no sense at all.

Precisely.

On a different subject, have you not heard of the NyQuil Donut?

 

[Troy_Parker]

I have not, good sir.

 

[StorminNorman]

I was referring to child slave labor, didn't make it clear in my post.

Who are we to decide what abuse is though? Should that not be the parents decision as well? If the market is selling them to overseas labor camps then its fair game?

A child shouldn't be forced to work against their will. (Though there can be consequences for not working. Lets use the more typical situation of chores. A parent shouldn't be able to physically harm a child to make them due their chores*. They can, however, deprive them of their toys (that the parents bought), their allowance (which their parents give them) or desert (which their parents provide). They can't starve them to death, since they took the child is their responsibility (which they accepted either by giving birth to the child or adopting the child.)

*Now what qualifies as abuse is a trickier question. For example, is spanking abuse? In my gut, I would say yes. And such a position would make the above all the more consistent. If you attempted to spank anyone other than your child, you would face consequences. At the same time, my parents spanked me and I obviously would never have wanted to see them punished for it.

So I would qualify abuse as neglecting pain upon the child or emotionally damaging the child (sexual abuse).

Now I have nothing against child labor. In fact I think employment opportunities should be presented as a possible alternative for some to schooling. I also am strongly against banning child labor, which only serves to push children who need to work (because their parents don't make enough to support them) into black market trades (drugs, prostitution, employment-without-typical-benefits.)

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Once more, not your decision to make.

Interestingly enough, people on here are getting all riled up over a product that does not affect them personally.

What a crazy concept. People caring about people they don't know. Giving blood or donating to a charity doesn't affect me personally either... but I do it. It's the right thing to do and it helps others.... and that in turn makes me feel good. I'm assuming you're a Batman fan with that Bane avatar. Do you think Batman's a socialist sap for going out there and trying to rescue strangers?

Lots of things don't affect me personally. Doesn't mean I can't care about them. It takes a village and all that.

Yet, where is all this passion when it comes to the Mormon religion? Or the slaughter of baby seals and cows? Or Drone attacks in Third-World countries? Or Private Manning possibly receiving a Treason charge?

I'm willing to bet that several members currently posting in this thread support at least one out of four.

Well, we know you support strawman arguments.


And you're making assumptions without knowing anything about us. Maybe we're all vegetarian, anti-Mormon, wikileaking hippies.

 

[StorminNorman]

I can't believe some people are simplifying this matter to... "Well, it's up to the parents."

l0lwut?

The problem is that this company is extremely ******ed. It just doesn't make sense, OBVIOUSLY designing something as stupid as lingerie for four year olds is going to be the subject of controversy. You'd think for a clothing company, they'd know that.

Designing lingerie for four year old girls makes as much sense as making condoms for four year old boys, no sense at all.

If it doesn't make any sense, then it will fail on the market.

Just as four year old condoms would.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

If it doesn't make any sense, then it will fail on the market.

Just as four year old condoms would.

It's not a good analogy, because the condoms would be intended for the boy.

The lingerie is not intended for the girl. She may wear it, but it's for someone else's pleasure.

Hypothetically, what if it doesn't fail? You keep hinting it will fail (which I think makes you feel better about justifying its' availability), but what if it's a wild success? Let the pedos be... or take it off the market?